Federal Register Vol. 81, No.67,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 67 (April 7, 2016)

Page Range20219-20522
FR Document

81_FR_67
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 20424 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20383 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 20382 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular MeetingPDF
81 FR 20375 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 20432 - Certification Related to the Government of Haiti Under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016PDF
81 FR 20448 - Departmental Offices; Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration BondsPDF
81 FR 20265 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel; Establishment of a Negotiated Rulemaking CommitteePDF
81 FR 20415 - Notice of Public Meeting, Dakotas Resource Advisory Council MeetingPDF
81 FR 20433 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 20435 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 20407 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 20251 - Program Integrity and ImprovementPDF
81 FR 20407 - Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 20250 - Program Integrity and Improvement; CorrectionsPDF
81 FR 20410 - Texas; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 20376 - Applications for New Awards; Innovative Approaches to Literacy ProgramPDF
81 FR 20411 - Notice of Extension of Time for Completion of Manufacturer Corrections Approved Under a Waiver of a Plan for NotificationPDF
81 FR 20320 - Notice of Request for Approval of a New Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 20414 - Notice of Realty Action: Classification for Lease and/or Subsequent Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands (N-90372) for an Elementary School in the Southwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NVPDF
81 FR 20412 - Notice of Realty Action: Non-Competitive Direct Sale, Renunciation, and Conveyance of the Reversionary Interests in Recreation and Public Purpose Act Patents in Glennallen, AlaskaPDF
81 FR 20257 - National Flood Insurance Program: Update To Address Information for Claims AppealsPDF
81 FR 20422 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 20319 - Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Unshu Oranges From the Republic of Korea Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 20322 - Wenatchee-Okanogan Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 20321 - Notice of Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 20366 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 20441 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TUNA HELPER; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 20441 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LIL BEAR; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 20351 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
81 FR 20438 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FISH MASTER; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 20440 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) Alumni SurveyPDF
81 FR 20324 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
81 FR 20439 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel REEL OBSESSION; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 20442 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel JUBILANT; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 20439 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel AL VENTO; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 20367 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 20274 - Tentative Determination To Approve Site Specific Flexibility for Closure and Monitoring of the Picacho LandfillPDF
81 FR 20442 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel KARINA JEAN; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 20440 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel INSULAE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 20387 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review-A Study of Viral Persistence in Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) Survivors; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 20384 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20383 - Notice of Termination, 10294 North County Bank, Arlington, WashingtonPDF
81 FR 20444 - Sanctions Action Pursuant to Executive Order 13664PDF
81 FR 20383 - Notice of Termination, 10326 Legacy Bank, Scottsdale, ArizonaPDF
81 FR 20416 - 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From China; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 20369 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
81 FR 20322 - Office of Administration; Commerce Alternative Personnel SystemPDF
81 FR 20446 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
81 FR 20415 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 20247 - Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels Carrying OilPDF
81 FR 20368 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; International Dolphin Conservation ProgramPDF
81 FR 20372 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 20384 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 20384 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 20383 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 20259 - Pacific Island Fisheries; 2015-16 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 BottomfishPDF
81 FR 20424 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473 (5300.9)PDF
81 FR 20407 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 20316 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies SpecificationsPDF
81 FR 20323 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20444 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
81 FR 20387 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20375 - Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance RatePDF
81 FR 20371 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 20422 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: 2016 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS)PDF
81 FR 20250 - Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System; AIS Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 20425 - Request of Recommendations for Membership for Directorate and Office Advisory CommitteesPDF
81 FR 20367 - Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National CybersecurityPDF
81 FR 20369 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 20395 - Notification of a Public Teleconference on American Indian/Alaska Native Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-Spirit Health IssuesPDF
81 FR 20388 - Notice of the Redesignation of the Service Delivery Area for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)PDF
81 FR 20396 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; Tribal Management Grant ProgramPDF
81 FR 20418 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Navinta, LLCPDF
81 FR 20419 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards WarehousePDF
81 FR 20419 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.PDF
81 FR 20418 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc.PDF
81 FR 20417 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Stepan CompanyPDF
81 FR 20264 - Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 20426 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 20426 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 20428 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To List and Trade Shares of the SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF of the SSgA Active TrustPDF
81 FR 20426 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees Under Rules 7015(b) and (g)PDF
81 FR 20443 - Hazardous Materials: ICAO Lithium Ion Battery Prohibition Safety Advisory NoticePDF
81 FR 20374 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 228, Bonds and Insurance, and Related Clauses in DFARS 252.228PDF
81 FR 20374 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20268 - Proposed Priority-Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind programPDF
81 FR 20406 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20406 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20405 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20406 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 20283 - Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting SystemPDF
81 FR 20448 - Commission on Care Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 20423 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
81 FR 20245 - Interpretation of the “Advice” Exemption in Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActPDF
81 FR 20261 - Energy Conservation Program: Data Collection and Comparison With Forecasted Unit Sales of Five Lamp TypesPDF
81 FR 20258 - Ensuring Continuity of 911 CommunicationsPDF
81 FR 20222 - Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop EnginesPDF
81 FR 20483 - Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program Policy DirectivePDF
81 FR 20449 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and Endangered Species Status for the Guyandotte River CrayfishPDF
81 FR 20252 - National Priorities ListPDF
81 FR 20277 - National Priorities ListPDF
81 FR 20319 - Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 20219 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 20224 - Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door OperatorsPDF
81 FR 20302 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Scarlet MacawPDF

Issue

81 67 Thursday, April 7, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee: Call for Nominations, 20319 2016-07631 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Economic Research Service

See

Forest Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 20369-20371 2016-07953 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Importation of Unshu Oranges from the Republic of Korea Into the Continental United States, 20319-20320 2016-08013 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20371-20372 2016-07962 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 20372-20374 2016-07975 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: A Study of Viral Persistence in Ebola Virus Disease Survivors; Correction, 20387 2016-07992 Children Children and Families Administration PROPOSED RULES Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, 20283-20301 2016-07920 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels Carrying Oil, 20247-20249 2016-07977 Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System, 20250 2016-07958 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20323-20324 2016-07966 Commerce Alternative Personnel System, 20322-20323 2016-07982
Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators, 20224-20245 2016-07552 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20374-20375 2016-07934 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Bonds and Insurance, and Related Clauses, 20374 2016-07935 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance Rate, 20375 2016-07963
Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20375-20376 2016-08086 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bulk Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Navinta, LLC, 20418-20419 2016-07948 Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Stepan Co., 20417-20418 2016-07944 Importers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc., 20418 2016-07945 Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 20419 2016-07946 VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards Warehouse, 20419-20422 2016-07947 Economic Research Economic Research Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20320-20321 2016-08030 Education Department Education Department RULES Program Integrity and Improvement, 20251-20252 2016-08055 Program Integrity and Improvement; Corrections, 20250-20251 2016-08053 PROPOSED RULES Priorities: Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who are Deaf-Blind Program, 20268-20274 2016-07933 NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program, 20376-20382 2016-08051 Energy Department Energy Department PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Data Collection and Comparison with Forecasted Unit Sales of Five Lamp Types, 20261-20264 2016-07873 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES National Priorities List, 20252-20257 2016-07672 PROPOSED RULES National Priorities List, 20277-20283 2016-07671 Tentative Determination to Approve Site Specific Flexibility: Closure and Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill, 20274-20277 2016-07996 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20382-20383 2016-08115 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines, 20222-20224 2016-07843 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 20219-20222 2016-07576 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes; Meeting, 20264-20265 2016-07943 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications, 20258-20259 2016-07845 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receiverships: Legacy Bank, Scottsdale, AZ, 20383 2016-07988 North County Bank, Arlington, WA, 20383 2016-07990 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20383 2016-08143 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES National Flood Insurance Program: Update to Address Information for Claims Appeals, 20257-20258 2016-08025 NOTICES Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations, 20407-20410 2016-08056 Major Disaster Declarations: Texas; Amendment No. 1, 20407 2016-08054 Major Disasters and Related Determinations: Texas, 20410-20411 2016-08052 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 20433-20438 2016-08058 2016-08059 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20384-20387 2016-07991 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 20384 2016-07974 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 20383-20384 2016-07972 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 20384 2016-07973 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and Endangered Species Status for the Guyandotte River Crayfish, 20450-20481 2016-07744 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Scarlet Macaw; Listing, 20302-20316 2016-07492 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 20444-20447 2016-07965 2016-07980 2016-07989 Foreign Claims Foreign Claims Settlement Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20422 2016-08019 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee, 20321-20322 2016-08011 Wenatchee-Okanogan Resource Advisory Committee, 20322 2016-08012 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20387-20388 2016-07964
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Extension of Time for Completion of Manufacturer Corrections Approved Under a Waiver of a Plan for Notification, 20411-20412 2016-08048 2016-08050 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Meetings: American Indian/Alaska Native Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-Spirit Health Issues, 20395-20396 2016-07952 Redesignation of Service Delivery Area: Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), 20388-20395 2016-07951 Requests for Applications: Tribal Management Grant Program, 20396-20405 2016-07950 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, 20366-20367 2016-08010 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Review, 20324-20351 2016-08002 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Review: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India and Thailand, 20351-20365 2016-08007 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Overflow and Drain Assemblies for Bathtubs and Components Thereof, 20415-20416 2016-07978 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from China, 20416-20417 2016-07987 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2016 Supplemental Victimization Survey, 20422-20423 2016-07961 Firearms Transaction Record, 20424 2016-07970 Proposed Modifications of Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 20423-20424 2016-07912
Labor Department Labor Department See

Labor-Management Standards Office

Labor Management Standards Labor-Management Standards Office RULES Interpretation of the Advice Exemption in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 20245-20246 2016-07883 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Dakotas Resource Advisory Council, 20415 2016-08061 Realty Actions: Classification for Lease etc. of Public Lands N-90372 for Elementary School, Southwest Portion of Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NV, 20414-20415 2016-08029 Non-Competitive Direct Sale, Renunciation, and Conveyance of the Reversionary Interests in Recreation and Public Purpose Act Patents in Glennallen, AK, 20412-20414 2016-08026 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: United States Merchant Marine Academy Alumni Survey, 20440-20441 2016-08003 Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel AL VENTO, 20439-20440 2016-07999 Vessel FISH MASTER, 20438-20439 2016-08006 Vessel INSULAE, 20440 2016-07994 Vessel JUBILANT, 20442 2016-08000 Vessel KARINA JEAN, 20442-20443 2016-07995 Vessel LIL BEAR, 20441-20442 2016-08008 Vessel REEL OBSESSION, 20439 2016-08001 Vessel TUNA HELPER, 20441 2016-08009 Morris K. Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20424-20425 2016-08149 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity, 20367 2016-07954 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 20405-20407 2016-07921 2016-07922 National Cancer Institute, 20406 2016-07923 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 20406 2016-07932 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Pacific Island Fisheries: Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish; Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures, 20259-20260 2016-07971 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications, 20316-20318 2016-07968 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: International Dolphin Conservation Program, 20368-20369 2016-07976 General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits, 20369 2016-07984 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 20367-20368 2016-07998 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Scientific and Technical Federal Advisory Committees, 20425-20426 2016-07956 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Hazardous Materials: ICAO Lithium Ion Battery Prohibition Safety Advisory, 20443-20444 2016-07936 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 20426 2016-07941 2016-07942 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 20426 2016-07940 2016-07939 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 20428-20432 2016-07938 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 20426-20428 2016-07937 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive, 20484-20522 2016-07817 State Department State Department NOTICES Certifications under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act: Government of Haiti, 20432 2016-08066 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment National Advisory Council, 20407 2016-07969 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PROPOSED RULES Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Establishment of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, 20265-20268 2016-08062
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

NOTICES Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited to Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds, 20448 2016-08064
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Commission on Care, 20448 2016-07919 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 20450-20481 2016-07744 Part III Small Business Administration, 20484-20522 2016-07817 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 67 Thursday, April 7, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0075; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-202-AD; Amendment 39-18461; AD 2016-07-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-26-08 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2013-26-08 required inspecting the orientation of both sides of the coil cord connector keyways of the number 2 windows on the flight deck; re-clocking the connector keyways, if necessary; and replacing the coil cord assemblies on both number 2 windows on the flight deck. This new AD adds airplanes to the applicability. AD 2013-26-08 resulted from reports of arcing and smoke at the left number 2 window in the flight deck. This AD was prompted by a determination that additional airplanes are subject to the same identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing, smoke, and fire in the flight deck, which could lead to injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 12, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 10, 2014 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. This service information is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0075.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0075; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Carreras, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6442; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-26-08, Amendment 39-17717 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014) (“AD 2013-26-08”). AD 2013-26-08 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3527) (“the NPRM”). AD 2013-26-08 resulted from reports of arcing and smoke at the left number 2 window in the flight deck. The NPRM was prompted by a determination that additional airplanes are subject to the same identified unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to continue to require inspecting the orientation of both sides of the coil cord connector keyways of the number 2 windows on the flight deck; re-clocking the connector keyways, if necessary; and replacing the coil cord assemblies on both number 2 windows on the flight deck. The NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing, smoke, and fire in the flight deck, which could lead to injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

Boeing stated that it supports the NPRM as written.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/184de9a71ec3fa5586257eae00707da6/$FILE/ST00830SE.pdf) does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

We agree with the commenter that STC ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/184de9a71ec3fa5586257eae00707da6/$FILE/ST00830SE.pdf) does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Comment Regarding Applicability

United Airlines (UAL) stated that it found it curious that the technical compliance mandated in AD 2013-26-08 was per Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, whereas the airplane applicability in AD 2013-26-08 was based on Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011. UAL stated that, consequently, it anticipated further regulatory action that would include the Group 3 airplanes specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, and has acted accordingly. UAL also stated that, since it was already planning accomplishment on the Group 3 airplanes, the only impact to it will be to change the AD number on the compliance documentation. UAL stated that it has no further comments at this time.

We acknowledge UAL's comment. No change to this AD is necessary.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 718 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Number of airplanes Cost on U.S. operators Keyway inspection and installation (Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes) [actions retained from AD 2013-26-08] 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 $1,608 $2,118 712 $1,508,016. Adjustment of receptacles (Group 1, Configuration 2, Group 2, and Group 3 airplanes) [actions retained from AD 2013-26-08] 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 0 340 410 139,400. Coil cord inspection (Group 1, Configuration 3, and Group 2 airplanes) [actions retained from AD 2013-26-08] 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per coil cord 0 85 per coil cord 404 34,340 per coil cord.

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the coil cord inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Replacement 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 per coil cord assembly $1,735 per coil cord assembly $1,990 per coil cord assembly.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-26-08, Amendment 39-17717 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2016-07-16 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18461; Docket No. FAA-2015-0075; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-202-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective May 12, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2013-26-08, Amendment 39-17717 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014) (“AD 2013-26-08”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports of arcing and smoke at the left number 2 window in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing, smoke, and fire in the flight deck, which could lead to injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection and Replacement for Group 1, Configuration 1, Airplanes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after February 10, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-26-08), do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

(1) Do a general visual inspection of the orientation of the coil cord connector keyways on the captain's and first officer's sides of the flight compartment, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. If the orientation is not at the specified position, before further flight, turn the receptacle connector to the correct position, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(2) Replace the coil cords with new coil cords on both sides of the flight deck, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(h) Retained Receptacle Replacement for Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2, Configuration 1, Airplanes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2, Configuration 1, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after February 10, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-26-08), install the receptacle connector with changed keyway position on both sides of the flight deck, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(i) Retained Coil Cord Inspection and Corrective Action

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 3, and Group 2, Configuration 2, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after February 10, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-26-08), do a general visual inspection for rubbing damage of the coil cord on the captain's and first officer's sides of the flight compartment, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. If any rubbing damage is found: Before further flight, replace the coil cord with a new coil cord, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) New Requirements of This AD: Receptacle Replacement for Group 3 Airplanes

For airplanes identified as Group 3 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, install the receptacle connector with changed keyway position on both sides of the flight deck, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(k) Exceptions to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013

(1) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. In the circuit breaker tables of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, the panel number for circuit breaker C00393 is incorrectly identified as “P6-12.” The correct panel number reference for circuit breaker C00393, “WINDOW HEAT POWER RIGHT SIDE,” is P6-11.

(2) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j)(2) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. In paragraph 3.B. of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, the description for Part 3 of the Work Instructions is identified as “PART 3: RECEPTACLE CONNECTOR POSITION CHANGE,” which is incorrect. The correct description for Part 3 of the Work Instructions is “PART 3: COIL CORD INSPECTION AND REPLACEMENT IF DAMAGE IS FOUND.”

(3) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j)(3) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. In Figures 13 and 14, in paragraph 3.B. of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, the note before the step tables misidentifies certain parts and airplane groups. The note should read:

Note:

Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes have the connector receptacle identified as D10572. Group 3 airplanes have the connector receptacle identified as D10560. Except for Group 1 airplanes, a wire diagram change is not necessary and not shown in this service bulletin.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (k) of AD 2013-26-08, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for the replacement required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if the replacement was performed before February 10, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2013-26-08), using the service information specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4), or (l)(5) of this AD, provided that the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD were done as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013; for airplanes in Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2.

(1) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, dated July 27, 2006, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(2) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(3) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 2, dated February 13, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(4) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(5) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011, which was previously incorporated by reference on February 10, 2014 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014).

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(3) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-26-08, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

(4) For airplanes identified as Group 3 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, AMOCs approved for the actions required by paragraph (h) of AD 2013-26-08, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD.

(n) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Frank Carreras, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6442; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(4) and (o)(5) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 10, 2014 (79 FR 545, January 6, 2014).

(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013.

(ii) Reserved.

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

(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 24, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07576 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3692; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-05-AD; Amendment 39-18458; AD 2016-07-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601E-11 turboprop engines. This AD requires inspection of the engine power turbine (PT) disk and, if found damaged, its replacement with a part eligible for installation. This AD was prompted by discovery of damage to certain engine PT disks during engine shop visits. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine PT disk, which could result in release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, and reduced control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective April 22, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 22, 2016.

We must receive comments on this AD by May 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: 202-493-2251.

For service information identified in this AD, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3692.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3692; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7765; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-3692; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-05-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0025-E, dated January 26, 2016 (corrected January 27, 2016) (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

During engine shop visits or overhauls, certain power turbine (PT) disks may have been damaged in the area of the balance weights. Additional PT disks with non-conforming geometry of the slot radius may have also been released to service as a result of incorrect machining of the PT disk slot.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a PT disk failure, with subsequent release of high-energy debris, possibly resulting in damage to, and/or reduced control of, the aeroplane.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3692.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016. The ASB describe procedures for inspection of the PT disk. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the Czech Republic, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires inspection of the engine PT disk and, if found damaged, its replacement with a part eligible for installation.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 60 hours per engine to do the inspection required by this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $0.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-07-13 GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type Certificate previously held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.): Amendment 39-18458; Docket No. FAA-2016-3692; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-05-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective April 22, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to GE Aviation Czech s.r.o M601E-11 turboprop engine models with engine power turbine (PT) disk, part number 3220.6 and serial number EE8, EF8, or KR5, installed.

(d) Reason

This AD was prompted by discovery of damage to certain engine PT disks during engine shop visits. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine PT disk, which could result in release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, and reduced control of the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

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

(1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, perform visual, dimensional, and fluorescent penetrant inspections of the engine PT disk. Use Appendix B, paragraph 5 of GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016, to do the inspections.

(2) If the engine PT disk fails to meet the acceptance criteria in Appendix B, paragraph 5 of GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. ASB No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016, replace the PT disk with a part eligible for installation.

(f) Installation Prohibition

After the effective date of this AD:

(1) Do not operate any engine with a PT disk serial number listed in paragraph (c) of this AD, unless the disk was inspected per the requirements of paragraph (e) of this AD; and

(2) Do not install a PT disk that does not meet the acceptance criteria in Appendix B, paragraph 5 of GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. ASB No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016, onto any engine.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(h) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7765; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2016-0025-E, dated January 26, 2016 (corrected January 27, 2016), for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2016-3692.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin No. SB-2016-72-50-00-1/00, dated January 21, 2016.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For GE Aviation Czech s.r.o service information identified in this AD, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 24, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07843 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1211 [Docket No. CPSC-2015-0025] Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators AGENCY:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) is issuing a final rule amending the regulations for the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators to reflect changes made by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (“UL”), in the entrapment protection provisions in UL's standard UL 325, Sixth Edition, “Standard for Safety for Door, Drapery, Gate, Louver, and Window Operators and Systems.”

DATES:

The rule is effective on May 9, 2016. The incorporations by reference of the publications listed in this rule are approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 9, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Troy W. Whitfield, Lead Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; Telephone (301) 504-7548 or email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The Commission has regulations for residential garage door operators (“GDOs”) to protect consumers from the risk of entrapment. 16 CFR part 1211. The Commission first issued the GDO standard in 1991, at the direction of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990 (“Improvement Act”), Public Law 101-608. Section 203 of the Improvement Act mandated that the entrapment protection requirements of the 1988 version of UL's 325, Third Edition, “Standard for Safety for Door, Drapery, Gate, Louver, and Window Operators and Systems,” be considered a consumer product safety rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act. Section 203(c) of the Improvement Act established procedures for the Commission to revise the Commission's GDO standard. When UL revises the entrapment protection requirements of UL 325, UL must notify the Commission of the revision, and that revision “shall be incorporated in the consumer product safety rule . . . unless, within 30 days of such notice, the Commission notifies [UL] that the Commission has determined that such revision does not carry out the purposes of subsection (b)” [of section 203 of the Improvement Act which mandated the UL 325 entrapment protection requirements initially]. As provided in the Improvement Act, several times in the past, after UL has notified the Commission of changes to UL 325's entrapment protection requirements, the Commission has revised the GDO standard to reflect the UL updates.

The Commission last updated 16 CFR part 1211 in 2007 to reflect changes made to the entrapment protection provisions of UL 325 up to that time that previously had not been reflected in the regulation.

On September 2, 2015, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”), proposing to update 16 CFR part 1211 to reflect recent changes made by UL to the entrapment protection requirements of UL 325. (See 80 FR 53036). After publication of the NPR, UL released an update to UL 325 (UL 325, Sixth Edition, February 24, 2016 Revision). The February 24, 2016 revisions to the UL 325 Sixth Edition are related to the entrapment protection provisions for residential GDOs and are minor and editorial in nature. The February 24, 2016 revisions were made by UL to improve the clarity of the standard and describe test conditions better. The final rule has been revised to incorporate these editorial changes, as described in Section C of the preamble, so that the rule is consistent with the most recent version of UL 325.

B. Responses to Comments

Three comments were submitted on the NPR. Two commenters express support for the proposed rule and acknowledge the rule's safety benefits.

Comment: One commenter expresses concern about the public availability and accessibility of documents that are incorporated by reference, by either congressional mandate or through rulemaking. The commenter asserts that it is unclear which version of UL 325 is mandatory law. The commenter also describes the difficulties encountered attempting to purchase UL 325, an attempt to request the standard under FOIA, as well as difficulty accessing UL 325 in government reading rooms or libraries. The commenter also asserts that the Fifth Edition of UL 325 is the current binding law, until the proposed rule is finalized.

The commenter also notes that the NPR proposed incorporating by reference five voluntary standards that are contained in UL 325. The commenter asserts that it is unclear what version of UL 99, UL 1998, and UL 746C the Commission proposed to incorporate by reference in the NPR. The commenter notes that the UL link in the NPR for the proposed incorporation by reference for the voluntary standard ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 is inoperative. The commenter further states that the DASMA Web site has a new version ANSI/DASMA 201-2011 on their Web site, and ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 is no longer available. The commenter asserts there is no reason to incorporate ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 because it is not readily available on the DASMA or CPSC Web site.

The commenter contends that it is crucial that these five voluntary standards be made freely available. The commenter notes that the law must be available for all to read because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Response: The commenter misunderstands the mandatory safety standard for automatic residential GDOs. The NPR did not propose incorporating by reference any part of UL 325, nor has any previous rulemaking under 16 CFR part 1211 incorporated by reference any part of UL 325. Therefore, no version of the voluntary standard UL 325 is currently mandatory, nor has it been mandatory in the past. Rather, using appropriate rulemaking procedures, the Commission has based the current and previous mandatory requirements of CPSC's safety standard for automatic residential GDOs in 16 CFR part 1211 on the entrapment protection provisions of UL 325. The NPR proposed revisions to 16 CFR part 1211 based upon revisions made to UL 325, but the NPR does not incorporate by reference any of the provisions of UL 325. All the requirements in the proposed rule are codified or incorporated in 16 CFR part 1211. Therefore, purchase of, or access, to any version UL 325 is not necessary to determine the legal requirements for automatic residential GDOs; all of the requirements for GDOs are stated in 16 CFR part 1211, which is publicly available in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”).

As correctly noted by the commenter, the Office of the Federal Register (“OFR”) requires reference to a specific version of a voluntary standard for the standard to be incorporated by reference in the CFR. The preamble and the codified text of the NPR clearly indicated what version of UL 99, UL 1998, and UL 746C was being proposed for incorporation by reference. (See 80 FR at 53039).

Regarding the incorporation by reference of the ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 voluntary standard in the NPR, the commenter is correct that the link on the DASMA Web site currently is inoperative. After publication of the NPR in the Federal Register, DASMA removed the ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 voluntary standard from its Web site and replaced it with the more recent version, ANSI/DASMA 102-2011. DASMA gave no indication on its Web site when the NPR was published that the standard was being updated with a newer version. As noted by the commenter, the revisions in ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 are not substantive in nature. Due to the public availability and the editorial nature of the changes reflected in ANSI/DASMA 102-2011, the final rule incorporates by reference ANSI/DASMA 102-2011, in lieu of the proposed incorporation of ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 in the NPR. The 2011 version of the ANSI/DASMA standard is available on DASMA's Web site.

Regarding the commenter's assertions about the incorporation by reference of five voluntary standards in the NPR, the OFR recently updated 1 CFR part 51, the regulation governing incorporation by reference in the CFR. (Final Rule, 79 FR 66267, November 7, 2014). Responding to comments regarding accessibility, the OFR noted that the final rule for incorporation by reference balanced the standards' reasonable availability with U.S. copyright law, U.S. international trade obligations, and agencies' ability to substantively regulate under their authorizing statutes. The OFR noted that to achieve this balance, the incorporation by reference rule requires that agencies discuss how incorporated materials were made publicly available to the parties, where those materials are located, and provide a summary of those materials in the preambles of rulemaking documents. (See 79 FR at 66270). The preamble to the NPR for the safety standard for automatic residential garage door operators provided that information. (See 80 FR 53036, 53039). The OFR noted in the preamble to the final rule regarding incorporation by reference and the cost of standards: “while these materials may not be as easily accessible as the commenter would like, . . . they are described in the regulatory text in sufficient detail so that a member of the public can identify the standard IBR'd into the regulation.” (79 FR at 66272). The Commission has met the requirements for 1 CFR part 51 regarding incorporation by reference.

C. Description of the Final Rule

The final rule revises subpart A of the GDO standard and creates a new subpart D to consolidate all of the incorporations by reference in the rule. The final rule does not change the certification (subpart B) or recordkeeping (subpart C) provisions of the GDO standard. The text of the final rule is nearly identical to the NPR, with the few exceptions described below. As explained in the NPR, the Commission is revising several sections of the existing regulation. In addition, the rule adds three new sections (§§ 1211.14 (unattended operation requirements), 1211.15 (vertically moving combination rigid one-piece overhead residential garage door and operator system) and 1211.40 (consolidating all of the incorporations by reference in one place).

Changes to the rule reflect changes that UL made to the entrapment protection provisions of UL 325. UL added requirements for certain types of GDOs that were not previously covered by the GDO standard. Most of the revisions to the GDO standard involve adding requirements for these types of GDOs and making changes related to these provisions. In addition, UL added requirements for unattended operation of GDOs and for wireless control and communications. Finally, UL made several editorial changes throughout the standard to provide better descriptions of the appropriate requirements and test conditions. UL also revised dimensional tolerances on test fixtures so that the fixtures can be manufactured using generally available machine tools. As discussed in more detail below, the Commission is incorporating these changes into the Commission's GDO standard at 16 CFR part 1211.

GDOs that Open Horizontally. Because UL added requirements for GDOs that open horizontally, the rule is revised to differentiate between requirements for horizontal- and vertical-opening GDOs (§ 1211.6(d)). Entrapment protection requirements are similar for vertically and horizontally opening GDOs. UL added and clarified test requirements to address entrapment protection for either vertical or horizontal movement. In addition, UL clarified wording throughout the standard, such as replacing “downward movement” with “closing movement,” and adding “vertically” or “horizontally” moving, where appropriate. Additionally, UL clarified secondary entrapment protection requirements for vertically and horizontally opening GDOs. The final rule incorporates these changes (§ 1211.8).

Combination Sectional Overhead GDOs. UL added requirements for combination sectional overhead GDOs, which are a door and operator combination, in which the door and hardware are an integral part of the operator, and in which the operator does not exert a driving force on the door in the closing direction. The final rule incorporates these changes (§ 1211.6(c)). Under UL's revised provisions, this type of GDO must comply with the common requirements for GDOs; plus, they must comply with the requirements found in the American National Standard/Door and Access Systems Manufacturers ANSI/DASMA 102-2011, Specifications for Sectional Doors, 2011 revision, dated May 19, 2011, which the rule incorporates by reference (§ 1211.6(c)). As noted in response to a comment in Section B of the preamble, the Commission is incorporating ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 instead of ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 as proposed in the NPR because ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 is the most recent version of the standard and the one publically available on the DASMA Web site. ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 does not differ from ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 substantively because the changes are merely editorial in nature.

ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 provides requirements for installation/operation, maintenance, durability, and identification of GDO systems with the name and address of the door system manufacturer, loads, in addition to general requirements. This ANSI/DASMA standard is available from ANSI/DASMA, or the standard may be examined at the offices of the Federal Register.

Additionally, the revised UL standard requires that the instructions for combination sectional overhead GDOs must specify: (1) The operator by manufacturer and model; (2) the doors by manufacturer, model, and maximum and minimum door width and height required for compliance to the entrapment protection requirements; (3) the hardware required to meet the entrapment protection requirements (§ 1211.16(a)(13)); and (4) how to properly counterbalance the door ((§ 1211.16(a)(14)). Finally, combination sectional overhead GDOs must be provided with permanent labels that contain specific warnings (§ 1211.17(k)) and markings (§ 1211.17 (m)). The rule includes these requirements in the sections indicated.

Unattended Operation of GDOs. UL added requirements for unattended operation of GDOs, which is permitted if additional safety features are provided. The final rule includes these requirements (new § 1211.14). Under UL's revised provisions, unattended operation is allowable only if proper installation instructions and markings are provided. Unattended GDOs must require one or more intentional actions to function and must require an audible and visual alarm that must signal for 5 seconds before door movement. Unattended operation is not permitted on one-piece or swinging garage doors. The word “bulb” is changed to “light” to address newer technologies that may use LEDs that may not be considered “bulbs” and clarifies that the visual or audio alarm during unattended operation does not require monitoring.

Combination Rigid One-Piece Overhead GDOs. UL added requirements for combination rigid one-piece overhead GDOs, which are a door and operator combination in which the door is constructed of one rigid piece. The final rule includes these requirements (new § 1211.15). Under UL's revised provisions, this type of GDO must comply with the common requirements for GDOs; plus, the speed of the door edge during movement must not exceed 6 inches per second. This type of GDO also must provide two additional independent secondary entrapment-protection devices, including a minimum of two sensors. Additionally, these GDOs must provide a means of mechanically detaching both door operators from the door and must have an interlock to de-energize the operator when detached. Finally, the installation instructions for combination rigid one-piece GDOs must specify attachment points for installation. The rule includes these requirements for instructions (§ 1211.16(b)(2)(13)).

Wireless Control and Communication. UL added requirements for wireless control (§§ 1211.8(d) and 1211.10(f)), including additional tests for battery operation (§ 1211.10(g)) and wireless communication (§ 1211.10(h)). The rule includes these requirements at the sections indicated.

Photoelectric Sensors. UL added requirements for alternate sources of light for the photoelectric sensor ambient light test. The rule includes these requirements (§ 1211.11(e)(2)). The current test method specifies a specific DXC-RFL-2 flood lamp, which is becoming difficult to obtain in the marketplace. Instead, the requirement specifies the minimum required wattage (500W) and maximum color temperature (3600K) of the light, to allow for available light sources without affecting the test results.

UL added a new test method for GDOs that use an array of “vertical” photoelectric sensors as a non-contact external entrapment protection device. The rule includes this new test method (§ 1211.11 (d)(4) and new paragraph (f)). The new method verifies that the “vertical” sensors function properly.

Clarifications. UL made several clarifications throughout the standard to improve clarity and describe test conditions better. The rule includes these clarifications:

• Electronic instructions (§ 1211.16(a)(10)) may be provided on alternate sources, such as CD-ROM, USB flash drive, or company Web site.

• For GDOs for one-piece doors that have an unattended operation function, certain markings are not required if the GDO automatically senses door operation (§§ 1211.16(b)(1)(ii), 1211.17(h), and 1211.18(m)),

• The requirements for UL markings for voltage, frequency, and input are clarified (§ 1211.18(b)(3) and (4)).

• UL marking requirements for risk of entrapment on GDOs that have user adjustments (§ 1211.18(i)) shall be located where visible to the user when making adjustments.

• Requirements for the external entrapment protection device (i.e., photoelectric sensor and edge sensor) test criteria (§ 1211.10(b), (c), and (e) and § 1211.11(d)(4)) are clarified, and the requirements for determining whether the system is operating normally before and after each test are made consistent throughout the standard.

• The requirements for the switch or relay used in the entrapment protection circuit (§ 1211.6(f)) are clarified by stating that the switch or relay must be capable of operating at a minimum cycling of 100,000 cycles, as intended in the GDO without failing, and that when/if failure does occur in actual use (at any cycle count), failure shall result in preventing further operation of the door.

As mentioned above, the rule reflects a few minor and editorial changes in UL 325, Sixth Edition, February 24, 2016 Revision. In addition, the final rule is adding a new subpart D to consolidate the incorporations by reference in the proposed rule in one location. The rule reflects the revisions below:

• Update the incorporation by reference in § 1211.6(c) from ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 to the more recent and available ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 voluntary standard.

• Add a new subpart D titled Incorporation by Reference, with a new § 1211.40 that centralizes the IBR paragraphs from the NPR in one location.

• Add a new cross reference in § 1211.8 (f) to § 1211.6(b)(3).

• Revise § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(3) to add the word “pull” before rope, and add two commas.

• Revise § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(6) to insert “above floors, landings, steps, or any other adjacent walking surface” between the words “feet” and “so.”

• Revise § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(9) by striking the proposed language and replacing with “For products having a manual release, instruct the end user on the operation of the manual release.”

• Create a new § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(10), and insert the language from proposed § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(9) in the new § 1211.16 (b)(1)(i)(10).

D. Incorporation by Reference

As noted above, a new subpart D titled Incorporation by Reference, with a new § 1211.40 that centralizes the IBR paragraphs from the NPR in one location is being added to the final rule. In addition, the rule updates the existing incorporations by reference in the mandatory rule to the most recent version of the appropriate voluntary standard, as follows:

• NFPA 70 (The standard addresses the installation of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways in commercial, residential, and industrial occupancies.)(§§ 1211.2(c) and 1211.40(c));

• UL 991 (The requirements apply to controls that employ solid-state devices and are intended for specified safety-related protective functions.)(§§ 1211.4(c), 1211.5(c) and 1211.40(d)(2));

• UL 1998 (These requirements apply to non-networked embedded microprocessor software whose failure is capable of resulting in a risk of fire, electric shock, or injury to persons.)(§§ 1211.8(f) and 1211.40(d)(3)); and

• UL 746C (These requirements cover parts made of polymeric materials that are used in electrical equipment and describe the various test procedures and their use in the testing of such parts and equipment.)(§§ 1211.10(d) and (e), 1211.12(c)(2), and 1211.40(d)(1)).

In addition, §§ 1211.6(c) and 1211.40(b) of the final rule adds a new incorporation by reference for ANSI/DASMA 102-2011. The NPR proposed incorporating ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 in § 1211.6(c) of the rule, but since publication of the NPR, DASMA has released a more recent version of the standard ANSI/DASMA 102-2011, dated May 19, 2011, on its Web site. The Commission is incorporating ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 instead of the ANSI/DASMA 102-2004 as proposed in the NPR because it is the most recent version of the standard and the one available on the DASMA Web site.

The OFR has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR revised these regulations to require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble, the ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, this section and section C of this preamble summarize the provisions of the voluntary standards that the rule incorporates by reference:

• Specifications for Sectional Doors, ANSI/DASMA 102-2011, dated May 19, 2011. ANSI/DASMA 102-2011 is copyrighted. Copies may be obtained from the Door and Access Systems Manufacturers' Association, International, 1300 Sumner Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115-2851, telephone (216) 241-7333, or online at: http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/Standards/ANSIDASMA102_2011.pdf.

• National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, 2014 edition, effective August 21, 2013. NFPA 70 is copyrighted. Copies may be obtained from the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, http://www.nfpa.org/; Telephone: (800) 344-3555.

• Standard for Safety for Tests for Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices, UL 991, Third Edition, dated October 22, 2004.

• Standard for Safety for Software in Programmable Components, UL 1998, Third Edition, dated December 18, 2013.

• Standard for Safety for Polymeric Materials—Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations, UL 746C, Sixth Edition, dated September 10, 2004.

The UL standards listed above are copyrighted. The UL standards may be obtained from UL, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 or online at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/. One may also inspect a copy of all of the above-referenced standards at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, Telephone: (301) 504-7923.

E. Effective Date

The NPR proposed a 30-day effective date from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register because the requirements for residential GDOs in UL 325, Sixth Edition are currently in effect. No comments were received regarding the effective date. Therefore, the effective date for the rule is May 9, 2016.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for the rules' potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The Commission certified that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b) in the NPR. 80 FR 53036, 53039. The Commission did not receive any comments that questioned or challenged this certification, nor has CPSC staff received any other information that would require a change or revision to the Commission's previous analysis of the impact of the rule on small entities. Therefore, the certification of no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities is still appropriate.

G. Environmental Considerations

The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for Commission rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because the rules “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. The Commission's regulations state that safety standards for products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Nothing in this rule alters that expectation.

H. Preemption

The Improvement Act contains a preemption provision that states: “those provisions of laws of States or political subdivisions which relate to the labeling of automatic residential garage door openers and those provisions which do not provide at least the equivalent degree of protection from the risk of injury associated with automatic residential garage door openers as the consumer product safety rule” are subject to preemption under 15 U.S.C. 2075. Public Law 101-608, section 203(f).

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1211

Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR part 1211 as follows:

PART 1211—SAFETY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS 1. The authority citation for part 1211 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 203 of Pub. L. 101-608, 104 Stat. 3110; 15 U.S.C. 2063 and 2065.

Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Amend § 1211.2 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 1211.2 Definition.

(c) Is intended to be employed in ordinary locations in accordance with NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.32).

3. Amend § 1211.4 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 1211.4 General requirements for protection against risk of injury.

(c) An electronic or solid-state circuit that performs a back-up, limiting, or other function intended to reduce the risk of fire, electric shock, or injury to persons, including entrapment protection circuits, shall comply with the requirements in UL 991 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40), including environmental and stress tests appropriate to the intended usage of the end-product.

4. Amend § 1211.5 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (6), (b) introductory text, and (b)(3) to read as follows:
§ 1211.5 General testing parameters.

(a) * * *

(1) With regard to electrical supervision of critical components, an operator being inoperative with respect to closing movement of the door meets the criteria for trouble indication.

(6) When a Computational Investigation is conducted, λp shall not be greater than 6 failures/106 hours for the entire system. For external secondary entrapment protection devices or systems that are sold separately, λp shall not be greater than 0 failures/106 hours. For internal secondary entrapment protection devices or systems whether or not they are sold separately, λp shall not be greater than 0 failures/106 hours. The operational test is conducted for 14 days. An external secondary entrapment protection device or system that is sold separately, and that has a λp greater than 0 failures/106 hours meets the intent of the requirement when for the combination of the operator and the specified external secondary entrapment protection device or system λp does not exceed 6 failures/106 hours. See § 1211.18(j) through (l).

(b) In the evaluation of entrapment protection circuits used in residential garage door operators, the critical condition flow chart shown in Figure 1 to subpart A shall be used:

(3) During the Power Cycling Safety for Tests in accordance with UL 991 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).

5. Revise § 1211.6 to read as follows:
§ 1211.6 General entrapment protection requirements.

(a) A residential garage door operator system shall be provided with inherent primary entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in § 1211.7.

(b) In addition to the inherent primary entrapment protection as required by paragraph (a) of this section, a vertically moving residential garage door operator shall comply with one of the following:

(1) Shall be constructed to:

(i) Require constant pressure on a control intended to be installed and activated within line of sight of the door to lower the door;

(ii) Reverse direction and open the door to the upmost position when constant pressure on a control is removed prior to operator reaching its lower limit, and

(iii) Limit a portable transmitter, when supplied, to function only to cause the operator to open the door;

(2) Shall be provided with a means for connection of an external secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8, 1211.10, and 1211.11; or

(3)(i) Shall be provided with an inherent secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8(a), 1211.8(c), 1211.8(f), 1211.10, and 1211.12 and is:

(A) A combination sectional overhead garage door operator system as described in § 1211.6(c); and

(B) For use only with vertically moving garage doors.

(ii) With respect to § 1211.6(b)(3)(i)(A), trolley-driven operators do not meet the definition of a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system.

(c) In the case of a vertically moving combination sectional overhead garage door operator system, the door shall comply with the requirements in ANSI/DASMA 102 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).

(d) In addition to the inherent primary entrapment protection as required by § 1211.6(a), a horizontally sliding residential garage door operator shall comply with one of the following:

(1) Shall be constructed to:

(i) Require constant pressure on a control to close the door;

(ii) Reverse direction and open the door a minimum of 2 in (50.8 mm) when constant pressure on a control is removed prior to operator reaching its position limit; and

(iii) Stop the door if a second obstruction is detected in the reverse direction.

(2) Shall be provided with a means for connection of an external secondary entrapment protection device for each leading edge as described in § 1211.8.

(e) A mechanical switch or a relay used in an entrapment protection circuit of an operator shall withstand 100,000 cycles of operation controlling a load no less severe (voltage, current, power factor, inrush and similar ratings) than it controls in the operator, and shall function normally upon completion of the test.

(f) In addition to complying with paragraph (e) of this section, in the event of a malfunction of a switch or relay (open or short) described in paragraph (c) of this section results in loss of any entrapment protection required by §§ 1211.7(a), 1211.7(b)(7), 1211.7(c)(7), 1211.8(a), or 1211.8(b), the door operator shall become inoperative at the end of the opening or closing operation, the door operator shall move the door to, and stay within, 1 foot (305 mm) of the uppermost position.

6. Revise § 1211.7 to read as follows:
§ 1211.7 Inherent primary entrapment protection requirements.

(a) General requirements. A vertically moving residential garage door operator system shall be supplied with inherent primary entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. A horizontally sliding residential garage door operator system shall be supplied with inherent primary entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Inherent primary entrapment protection, vertically moving doors. (1)(i) For a vertically moving residential garage door operator system, other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any secondary external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in subparagraph (b)(3) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b)(3) through (10) of this section.

(ii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when the operator senses a second obstruction during the upward travel.

(iii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).

(2) The test shall be performed on a representative operating system installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions with the operator exerting a 25-lbf (111.21-N) pull or its rated pull, whichever is greater.

(3)(i) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.

(ii) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door.

(iii) To test operators for compliance with requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(7)(iii), and (b)(8)(iii) of this section and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm)long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4-inch (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position.

(4) An operator is to be tested for compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section for 50 open-and-close cycles of operation while the operator is connected to the type of residential garage door with which it is intended to be used or with the doors specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section. For an operator having a force adjustment on the operator, the force is to be adjusted to the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition. Any accessories having an effect on the intended operation of entrapment protection functions that are intended for use with the operator, are to be attached and the test is to be repeated for one additional cycle.

(5) For an operator that is to be adjusted (limit and force) according to instructions supplied with the operator, the operator is to be tested for 10 additional obstruction cycles using the solid object described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section at the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition.

(6) For an operator that is intended to be used with more than one type of door, one sample of the operator is to be tested on a sectional door with a curved track and one sample is to be tested on a one-piece door with jamb hardware and no track. For an operator that is not intended for use on either or both types of doors, a one-piece door with track hardware or a one-piece door with pivot hardware shall be used for the tests. For an operator that is intended for use with a specifically dedicated door or doors, a representative door or doors shall be used for the tests. See the marking requirements at § 1211.18.

(7)(i) An operator, employing an inherent entrapment protection system that measures or monitors the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position in the event the inherent door operating “profile” of the door differs from the originally set parameters. The entrapment protection system shall measure or monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm).

(ii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel.

(iii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).

(8)(i) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that does not measure or monitor the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door, to and stop the door at the full upmost position, when the lower limiting device is not actuated in 30 seconds or less following the initiation of the close cycle.

(ii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel. When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.

(iii) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.

(9) To determine compliance with paragraph (b)(7) or (8) of this section, an operator is to be subjected to 10 open-and-close cycles of operation while connected to the door or doors specified in paragraphs (b)(4) and (6) of this section. The cycles are not required to be consecutive. Motor cooling-off periods during the test meet the intent of the requirement. The means supplied to comply with the requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and § 1211.8(a) or (b) are to be defeated during the test. An obstructing object is to be used so that the door is not capable of activating a lower limiting device.

(10) During the closing cycle referred to in paragraph (b)(9) of this section, the system providing compliance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (7) of this section or paragraphs (b)(1) and (8) of this section shall function regardless of a short- or open-circuit anywhere in any low-voltage external wiring, any external entrapment devices, or any other external component.

(c) Inherent primary entrapment protection, horizontally sliding doors. (1)(i) For a horizontally sliding residential garage door operator system, other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full closed position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a closing residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall open the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm) from the edge of the obstruction. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) through (10) of this section.

(ii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when the operator senses a second obstruction during the closing direction of travel.

(iii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when a control is actuated to stop the door during movement towards the open position—but the door can not be moved towards the open position until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).

(2) The test shall be performed on a representative operating system installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions with the operator exerting a 25-lbf (111.21-N) pull or its rated pull, whichever is greater.

(3)(i) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and rigidly supported within the bottom track and then repeated with the solid object placed on the floor and rigidly supported external to the track. The test shall then be repeated with the solid object rigidly supported at heights of 1 ft (305 mm), 3 ft (914 mm), 5 ft (1524 mm), and within 1 ft (305 mm) of the top edge. The object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) in width.

(ii) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center and within 1 ft of each end of the door opening.

(iii) To test operators for compliance with paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(7)(iii), and (c)(8)(iii) of this section, and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 in (152 mm) long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4 in (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position with the test repeated with the bottom edge of the obstruction rigidly supported at heights of 1 ft (305 mm), 3ft (914 mm), 5ft (1524 mm), and within 1 ft (305 mm) of the top edge.

(4) An operator is to be tested for compliance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section for 50 open-and-close cycles of operation while the operator is connected to the type of residential garage door with which it is intended to be used or with the doors specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. For an operator having a force adjustment on the operator, the force is to be adjusted to the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition. Any accessories having an effect on the intended operation of entrapment protection functions that are intended for use with the operator, are to be attached and the test is to be repeated for one additional cycle.

(5) For an operator that is to be adjusted (limit and force) according to instructions supplied with the operator, the operator is to be tested for 10 additional obstruction cycles using the solid object described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section at the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition.

(6) For an operator that is intended to be used with more than one type of door, one sample of the operator is to be tested on a sectional door with a curved track and one sample is to be tested on a one-piece door with jamb hardware and no track. For an operator that is not intended for use on either or both of these types of doors, a one-piece door with track hardware or a one-piece door with pivot hardware shall be used for the tests. For an operator that is intended for use with a specifically dedicated door or doors, a representative door or doors shall be used for the tests. See the marking requirements in § 1211.18.

(7)(i) An operator, employing an inherent entrapment protection control that measures or monitors the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the fully closed position in the event the inherent door operation “profile” of the door differs from the originally set parameters. The system shall measure or monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm).

(ii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the reversing travel.

(iii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when a control is actuated to stop the door during the opening direction—but the door can not be moved in the closing direction until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).

(8)(i) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that does not measure or monitor the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when the closed position limit device is not actuated within 30 seconds or less following the initiation of the close cycle.

(ii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the reversing travel.

(iii) The door operator is not required to open the door a minimum 2 inches (50.8 mm) when a control is actuated to stop the door during the opening direction—but the door can not be moved in the closing direction until the operator has reversed the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). When the door is stopped manually during its closing, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.

(9) To determine compliance with paragraph (c)(7) or (8) of this section, an operator is to be subjected to 10 open-and-close cycles of operation while connected to the door or doors specified in paragraphs (c)(4) and (6) of this section. The cycles are not required to be consecutive. Motor cooling-off periods during the test meet the intent of the requirement. The means supplied to comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this section and § 1211.8(b) are to be inoperative or defeated during the test. An obstructing object is to be used so that the door is not capable of activating a position limiting device.

(10) During the closing cycle referred to in paragraph (c)(9) of this section, the system providing compliance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (7) of this section or paragraphs (c)(1) and (8) of this section shall function regardless of a short- or open-circuit anywhere in any low-voltage external wiring, any external entrapment devices, or any other external component.

7. Revise § 1211.8 to read as follows:
§ 1211.8 Secondary entrapment protection requirements.

(a)(1) For a vertically moving door operator, a secondary entrapment protection device supplied with, or as an accessory to, an operator shall consist of:

(i) An external photoelectric sensor that when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door, returns the door to, and stops the door at the fully open position, and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,

(ii) An external edge sensor installed on the edge of the door that, when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door, returns the door to, and stops the door at the fully open position, and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,

(iii) An inherent door sensor independent of the system used to comply with § 1211.7 that, when activated, results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door, or

(iv) Any other external or internal device that provides entrapment protection equivalent to paragraph (a)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.

(2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the fully open position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the opening travel.

(3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the fully open position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the opening travel—but the door cannot be moved towards the closing direction until the operator has reversed the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).

(b) For horizontal sliding garage door operators, a secondary entrapment protection device supplied with, or as an accessory to, an operator shall consist of:

(1) An external photoelectric sensor that, when activated, results in an operator that is closing or opening a door to reverse direction of the door for a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm); or

(2) An external edge sensor installed on the edge of the door that, when activated, results in an operator that is closing or opening a door to reverse direction of the door for a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).

(c) With respect to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the operator shall monitor for the presence and correct operation of the device at least once during each close cycle. Should the device not be present or a fault condition occurs which precludes the sensing of an obstruction, including an interruption of the wireless signal to the wireless device or an open or short circuit in the wiring that connects an external entrapment protection device to the operator and device's supply source, the operator shall be constructed such that:

(1) For a vertically moving door, the closing door shall open and an open door shall not close more than 1 foot (305 mm) below the upmost position;

(2) For a horizontally sliding door, the door shall not move in the opening or closing direction; or

(3) The operator shall function as required by § 1211.6(b)(1).

(d) An external entrapment protection device or system, when employing a wireless control, shall comply with paragraph (e) of this section when installed at its farthest distance from the operator as recommended in the installation instructions.

(e) An external entrapment protection device shall comply with the applicable requirements in §§ 1211.10, 1211.11, and 1211.12.

(f) An inherent secondary entrapment protection device described in § 1211.6(b)(3) shall comply with the applicable requirements in § 1211.13. Software used in an inherent entrapment protection device shall comply with UL 1998 (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).

8. Amend § 1211.9 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (c) to read as follows:
§ 1211.9 Additional entrapment protection requirements.

(a) A means to manually detach the door operator from the door shall be supplied. The gripping surface (handle) shall be colored red and shall be easily distinguishable from the rest of the operator. It shall be capable of being adjusted to a height of 6 feet (1.8 m) above the garage floor when the operator is installed according to the instructions specified in § 1211.16(a)(2). The means shall be constructed so that a hand firmly gripping it and applying a maximum of 50 pounds (223 N) of force shall detach the operator with the door obstructed in the down position. The obstructing object, as described in § 1211.7(b)(3)(i), is to be located in several different positions. A marking with instructions for detaching the operator shall be provided as required by § 1211.17(a), (b), and (j), as applicable.

(b) * * *

(2) The door is capable of being moved to the 2-inch (50.8-mm) point from any position between closed and the 2-inch (50.8-mm) point.

(c) Actuation of a control that initiates movement of a door shall stop and may reverse the door on the closing cycle. On the opening cycle, actuation of a control shall stop the door but not reverse it.

9. Revise § 1211.10 to read as follows:
§ 1211.10 Requirements for all entrapment protection devices.

(a) General requirements. (1) An external entrapment protection device shall perform its intended function when tested in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of this section.

(2) The device is to be installed in the intended manner and its terminals connected to circuits of the door operator as indicated by the installation instructions.

(3) The device is to be installed and tested at minimum and maximum heights and widths representative of recommended ranges specified in the installation instructions. For doors, if not specified, devices are to be tested on a minimum 7 foot (2.1 m) wide door and maximum 20 foot (6.1 m) wide door.

(4) If powered by a separate source of power, the power-input supply terminals are to be connected to supply circuits of rated voltage and frequency.

(5) An external entrapment protection device requiring alignment, such as a photoelectric sensor, shall be provided with a means, such as a visual indicator, to show proper alignment and operation of the device.

(b) Current protection test. (1) There shall be no damage to the entrapment protection circuitry if low voltage field-wiring terminals or leads are shortened or miswired to adjacent terminals.

(2) To determine compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an external entrapment protection device is to be connected to a door operator or other source of power in the intended manner, after which all connections to low voltage terminals or leads are to be reversed as pairs, reversed individually, or connected to any low voltage lead or adjacent terminal.

(3) After restoring the connections in the intended manner:

(i) A photoelectric sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation tests per § 1211.11(a) through (c); and

(ii) An edge sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation test, per § 1211.12(a).

(c) Splash test. (1) An external entrapment protection device intended to be installed inside a garage 3 feet or less above the floor shall withstand a water exposure as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section without resulting in a risk of electric shock and shall function as intended, per paragraph (c)(3) of this section. After exposure, the external surface of the device may be dried before determining its functionality.

(2) External entrapment protection devices are to be indirectly sprayed using a hose having the free end fitted with a nozzle as illustrated in Figure 2 to subpart A and connected to a water supply capable of maintaining a flow rate of 5 gallons (19 liters) per minute as measured at the outlet orifice of the nozzle. The water from the hose is to be played, from all sides and at any angle against the floor under the device in such a manner most likely to cause water to splash the enclosure of electric components. However, the nozzle is not to be brought closer than 10 feet (3.05 m) horizontally to the device. The water is to be sprayed for 1 minute.

(3) After drying the external surface of the device:

(i) A photoelectric sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation Tests per § 1211.11(a) through (c); and

(ii) An edge sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation Test, per § 1211.12(a).

(iii) There shall be no water on uninsulated live parts of a line voltage circuit.

(d) Ultraviolet light exposure test. A polymeric material used as a functional part of a device that is exposed to outdoor weather conditions shall comply with the Ultraviolet Light Exposure Test described in UL 746C (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).

(e) Resistance to impact test. (1) An external entrapment protection device employing a polymeric or elastomeric material as a functional part shall be subjected to the impact test specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. As a result of the test:

(i) There shall be no cracking or breaking of the part; and

(ii) The part shall operate as intended, per paragraph (e)(4) of this section, or, if dislodged after the test, is capable of being restored to its original condition.

(2) Samples of the external entrapment protection device are to be subjected to the Resistance to Impact Test described in UL 746C (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40). The external entrapment protection device is to be subjected to 5 foot-pound (6.8 J) impacts. Three samples are to be tested, each sample being subjected to three impacts at different points.

(3) In lieu of conducting the room temperature test described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, each of three samples of a device exposed to outdoor weather when the door is the closed position are to be cooled to a temperature of minus 31.0 ± 3.6 °F (minus 35.0 ± 2.0 °C) and maintained at this temperature for 3 hours. Three samples of a device employed inside the garage are to be cooled to a temperature of 32.0 °F (0.0 °C) and maintained at this temperature for 3 hours. While the sample is still cold, the samples are to be subjected to the impact test described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(4) To determine compliance with paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section:

(i) A photoelectric sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation tests per § 1211.11(a) through (c); and

(ii) An edge sensor shall comply with the Normal Operation Test, per § 1211.12(a).

(f) External entrapment protection devices with wireless control—(1) Initial test set-up. (i) For a wireless device intended to be powered by a non-rechargeable battery, a fully charged battery shall be installed per the instructions or markings on the product. See § 1211.16 (a)(7).

(ii) An entrapment protection device or system employing a wireless control, or separately supplied for, shall be installed per the manufacturer's instructions.

(2) Radiated immunity test. (i) An external entrapment protection device when employing wireless control shall operate as specified in § 1211.8(a) through (e) as applicable; or is rendered inoperative (any case in which the operator will not complete a full cycle, open and close, of travel) when tested in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section.

(ii) Compliance to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section is verified by simulating an obstruction during the period of the electric field strength test of § 1211.4(c).

(g) Battery test for wireless devices. (1) An external entrapment protection device when employing a battery powered wireless control shall operate as specified in § 1211.8(a) through (e) as applicable; or is rendered inoperative (any case in which the operator will not complete a full cycle, open and close, of travel) when tested in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this section.

(2) Compliance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall be verified with battery charge at the following levels:

(i) Fully charged; and

(ii) Discharged per the manufacturer's recommendations to the wireless device's lowest operational voltage.

(3) An external entrapment protection device employing a battery powered wireless device operating under conditions with a fully discharged battery or when the battery is discharged sufficiently to cause the device or system to render the moving door inoperative, shall be considered a single point fault for complying with §§ 1211.5(b) and 1211.8(c).

(h) Ambient light test for wireless device with IR communication. (1) An external entrapment protection device, when employing an IR communication shall operate as specified in § 1211.8(a) through (e) as applicable; or is rendered inoperative (any case in which the operator will not complete a full cycle, open and close, of travel) when subjected to ambient light impinging at an angle of 15 to 20 degrees from the axis of the beam when tested in accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

(2) An external entrapment protection device when employing an IR communication shall be set up at maximum range per paragraph (h)(1) of this section. The ambient light test described in § 1211.11(e)(2) shall be conducted with the light source impinging on each IR receiver, one at a time that is part of the wireless control system between the external entrapment protection device and the operator.

10. Revise § 1211.11 to read as follows:
§ 1211.11 Requirements for photoelectric sensors.

(a) Normal operation test. When installed as described in § 1211.10(a)(1) through (4), a photoelectric sensor of a vertically moving door shall sense an obstruction as described in paragraph (c) of this section that is to be placed on the floor at three points over the width of the door opening, at distances of 1 foot (305 mm) from each end and the midpoint.

(b) Normal operation test—Horizontally moving door. When installed as described in § 1211.10(a)(1) through (4), a photoelectric sensor of a horizontally moving door shall be tested per paragraph (c) of this section that is to be placed on a level surface within the path of the moving door. The sensor is to be tested with the obstruction at a total of five different locations over the height of the door or gate opening. The locations shall include distances 1 in (25.4 mm) from each end, 1 ft (305 mm) from each end, and the midpoint.

(c) Normal operation test—Obstruction. The obstruction noted in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall consist of a white vertical surface 6 inches (152 mm) high by 12 inches (305 mm) long. The obstruction is to be centered in the opening perpendicular to the plane of the door when in the closed position. See Figure 3 to subpart A.

(d) Sensitivity test. (1) When installed as described in § 1211.10(a)(1) through (4), a photoelectric sensor shall sense the presence of a moving object when tested according to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

(2) The moving object is to consist of a 1 7/8 inch (47.6 mm) diameter cylindrical rod, 341/2 inches (876 mm) long, with the axis point being 34 inches (864 mm) from the end. The axis point is to be fixed at a point centered directly above the beam of the photoelectric sensor 36 inches (914 mm) above the floor. The photoelectric sensor is to be mounted at the highest position as recommended by the manufacturer. The rod is to be swung as a pendulum through the photoelectric sensor's beam from a position 45 degrees from the plane of the door when in the closed position. See Figure 4 to subpart A.

(3) The test described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section is to be conducted at three points over the width of the door opening, at distances of 1 foot (305 mm) from each end and the midpoint.

(4) When the test fixture of Figure 4 to subpart A, prior to conduct of the test, interferes with the photoelectric sensor detection zone, the tests per paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section may be conducted instead per paragraph (f)(4) of this section.

(e) Ambient light test. (1) A photoelectric sensor shall operate as specified in § 1211.8(a) and (c) when subjected to ambient light impinging at an angle of 15 to 20 degrees from the axis of the beam when tested according to paragraph (e)(2) of this section and, if appropriate, paragraph (e)(3) of this section.

(2) To determine compliance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a 500 watt incandescent or equivalent minimum rated, 3600K or lower color rated flood lamp is to be energized from a 120-volt, 60-hertz source. The lamp is to be positioned 5 feet from the front of the receiver and aimed directly at the sensor at an angle of 15 to 20 degrees from the axis of the beam. See Figure 5 to subpart A.

(3) If the photoelectric sensor uses a reflector, this test is to be repeated with the lamp aimed at the reflector.

(4) During the test conditions described in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section, a photoelectric sensor shall comply with the normal operation test requirements described in paragraph (a) of this section, and

(i) A photoelectric sensor shall comply with sensitivity test requirements described in paragraph (d) of this section, and

(ii) An edge sensor shall comply with the normal operation test requirements described in § 1211.12.

(f) Photoelectric sensor vertical arrays (1) A vertical array shall be tested as required by paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, except as noted in paragraphs (f)(2) through (5) of this section.

(2) The array shall comply with the Normal Operation tests specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, with the solid obstruction placed on the floor. In addition, the obstruction shall be placed at various locations over the height of the light curtain array in accordance with the light curtain coverage area per the manufacturer's instructions.

(3) In conducting the tests specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, when the product includes a blanking function whereby the light array is located directly in-line with the path of the door travel, and the door system is intended to detect any obstruction other than one in the “next” successive position that the door is programmed to travel, the obstruction is placed at any location other than the next successive door position expected by the system.

(4) The array shall comply with the Sensitivity Test specified in paragraph (d) of this section, except that the edge of the pendulum nearest to the array is to be located 2 in. (50.8 mm) from one side of the plane of the array, rather than directly above one photoelectric sensor pair. For vertical arrays, this test need only be conducted with the test pendulum at the vertical height indicated in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

(5) When conducting the Ambient Light Test specified in paragraph (e) of this section, the position of the light source shall be aligned per paragraph (e)(2) of this section based on the axis of the lowest beam or detection zone. This arrangement shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section (with the obstruction at the floor level) and paragraph (f)(4) of this section, which are the only conditions for which the ambient light is required to be applied.

11. Amend § 1211.12 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1) and (2), and (d) to read as follows:
§ 1211.12 Requirements for edge sensors.

(a) * * *

(1) When installed on a representative residential door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 pounds (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 17/8 inch (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the switch so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a one piece door, the force is to be applied so that the axis is at an angle 30 degrees from the direction perpendicular to the plane of the door. See Figure 6 to subpart A.

(c) * * *

(1) An elastomeric material used as a functional part of an edge sensor shall function as intended when subjected to:

(i) Accelerated Aging Test of Gaskets, stated in paragraph (c)(3) of this section,

(ii) Compliance to the Standard for Gaskets and Seals, UL 157, fulfills this requirement (see paragraph (c)(2) of this section for UL contact information); and

(iii) Puncture Resistance Test, stated in paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) An elastomeric material used for a functional part that is exposed to outdoor weather conditions when the door is in the closed position shall have physical properties as specified in the Table to subpart A after being conditioned in accordance with the Ultraviolet Light Exposure Test described in UL 746C (incorporated by reference, see § 1211.40).

(d) Puncture resistance test. (1) After being subjected to the tests described in paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, an elastomeric material that is a functional part of an edge sensor shall:

(i) Not be damaged in a manner that would adversely affect the intended operation of the edge sensor, and

(ii) Maintain enclosure integrity if it serves to reduce the likelihood of contamination of electrical contacts.

(2) For a vertically moving door, a sample of the edge sensor is to be installed in the intended manner on a representative door edge. The probe described in Figure 7 to subpart A is to be applied with a 20 pound-force (89N) to any point on the sensor that is 3 inches (76 mm) or less above the floor is to be applied in the direction specified in the Edge Sensor Normal Operation Test, Figure 6 to subpart A. The test is to be repeated on three locations on each surface of the sensor being tested.

(3) For horizontally sliding doors, sample of the edge sensor is to be installed in the intended manner on a representative door edge. The probe described in Figure 7 to subpart A is to be applied with a 20 lbf (89 N) to any point on the sensor when the door is within 3 in (76 mm) of its fully open position and within 3 in (76 mm) of any stationary wall. For each type of door, the force is to be applied in the direction specified in the Edge Sensor Normal Operation Test, Figure 6 to subpart A. The test is to be repeated on three locations on each surface of the sensor being tested.

13. Revise § 1211.13 to read as follows:
§ 1211.13 Inherent force activated secondary door sensors.

(a) General. (1) A force activated door sensor of a door system installed according to the installation instructions shall actuate in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, which are to be conducted in sequence on a single system sample, except for the separate test sequences of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(2) The system shall actuate with the maximum and minimum specifications of the door, operator, and hardware.

(3) Tests conducted per paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section shall be performed with the force exerted by a drive adjusted to its highest value if the force can be adjusted by the user during use or user maintenance.

(4) The test cylinder referred to in paragraph (b)(7) of this section shall be a 17/8 in (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed under the door so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. See Figure 6 to subpart A.

(5) The measuring device referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall:

(i) Have an accuracy of +/−1%;

(ii) Have a rise and fall time not exceeding 5 ms;

(iii) Have the equivalence of a spring constant of 2855 lb/in +/−285 lb/in (500 N/mm, +/−50 N/mm);

(iv) Be placed on a rigid, level surface; and

(v) Have a rigid plate with a diameter of 3.1 in (80 mm).

(vi) See paragraph (a)(6) of this section for test equipment alternatives for force measurements at 1 ft (305 mm) or greater for the tests conducted per paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.

(6) With regard to the alternative test equipment referred to in paragraph (a)(5)(vi) of this section, the test device described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section for force measurements at 1 foot (305 mm) or greater shall be:

(i) A spring constant means such as specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section;

(ii) A gravity based weight displacing means that suspends a weight off its supporting surface upon exceeding 15 lbf (67 N) such as the example shown in figures 8 through 10 of this subpart if the equipment described in paragraph (a)(5) of this section is applied before the tests specified in paragraph (c) of this section and after the tests specified in paragraph (d) of this section at the 1 ft (305 mm) height specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section; or

(iii) The equivalent requirements of paragraphs (a)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(7) The cycles specified in paragraph (d) of this section are not required to be consecutive. Continuous operation of the motor without cooling is not required.

(b) Closing force test. (1) The door shall stop and reverse within 2 seconds after contacting the obstruction. The door shall apply the following forces at the locations noted in paragraph (b)(2) of this section:

(i) 90 lbf (400 N) or less average during the first 0.75 seconds after 15 lbf (67 N) is exceeded from initial impact; and

(ii) 15 lbf (67 N) or less from 0.75 seconds after 15 lbf (67 N) is exceeded from initial impact until the door reverses.

(2) The test referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be conducted at the following test height and locations along the edge of the door:

(i) The center point, at a height of 2 in (50.8) from the floor;

(ii) Within 1 ft (305 mm) of the end of the door, at a height of 2 in (50.8) from the floor; and

(iii) Within 1 ft (305 mm) of the other end of the door, at a height of 2 in (50.8) from the floor.

(3) The maximum force specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be tested by the door applying a force against the longitudinal edge of the test cylinder described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(4) The equipment used to measure force for the test described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

(5) The door shall stop and reverse within 2 seconds after contacting the obstruction. The door shall apply a load of 15 lbf (67 N) or less in the closing direction along the path of door travel at the locations noted in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.

(6) The test described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be conducted at the following points along the edge of the door:

(i) At the center at heights of 1 ft, 3 ft, and 5 ft (305 mm, 914 mm and 1.52 m) from the floor;

(ii) Within 1 ft (305 mm) of the end of the door, at heights of 1 ft, 3 ft, and 5 ft from the floor; and

(iii) Within 1 ft of the other end of the door at heights of 1 ft, 3 ft, and 5 ft from the floor.

(7) The maximum force described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be tested by the door applying a force against the longitudinal edge of the test cylinder as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(8) The equipment used to measure forces for the test described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) or (6) of this section.

(c) Opening force test. (1) The door shall stop within 2 seconds after a weight of 44 lb (20 kg) is applied to the door.

(2) The test described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be conducted with the door starting from the fully closed position and at heights of approximately 1 ft, 3 ft, and 5 ft (305 mm, 914 mm and 1.52 m) from the floor.

(3) Test weight(s) shall be applied to sections of the door that are vertical in the initial stopped position for each test height prior to operator activation.

(d) Fifty cycle test. (1) With the door(s) at the test point(s) determined by the tests described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section to be most severe with respect to both reversal time and force, the door system shall function as intended after 50 cycles of operation. After the last cycle, the system shall complete one additional cycle of opening the door to its fully open condition and closing the door to its fully closed position.

(2) The tests described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall be repeated upon completion of cycling test.

(e) Adjustment of door weight. At the point determined by the test described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section to be the most severe, weight is to be added to the door in 5.0 pound (2.26 Kg) increments and the tests of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are to be repeated until a total of 15.0 pounds (66.72 N) has been added to the door. Before performing each test cycle, the door is to be cycled 2 times to update the profile. Similarly, starting from normal weight plus 15.0 pounds, the tests described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are to be repeated by subtracting weight in 5.0 pound increments until a total of 15.0 pounds has been subtracted from the door.

(f) Obstruction test. For a door traveling in the downward direction, when an inherent secondary entrapment protection device senses an obstruction and initiates a reversal, any control activation shall not move the door downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). The test is to be performed as described in § 1211.7(b)(3)(iii). The system may be initially manually re-profiled for the purpose of this test.

§§ 1211.14 through 1211.17 [Redesignated as §§ 1211.16 through 1211.19]
13. Redesignate §§ 1211.14 through 1211.17 as §§ 1211.16 through 1211.19 respectively. 14. Add new § 1211.14 to read as follows:
§ 1211.14 Unattended operation requirements.

(a) General requirements. (1) A residential garage door operator or system may permit unattended operation to close a garage door, provided the operator system complies with the additional requirements of paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.

(2) Unattended operation shall not be permitted on one-piece garage doors or swinging garage doors. An operator intended for use with both sectional doors and one-piece or swinging doors that have an unattended operation close feature shall identify that the unattended operation closing feature is only permitted to be enabled when installed with a sectional door by complying with:

(i) The installation instructions stated in § 1211.16(b)(1)(ii);

(ii) The markings specified in § 1211.17(h); and

(iii) The carton markings specified in § 1211.18(m) when the carton references the unattended operation close feature.

(b) Operator system. The operator system shall require one or more intentional actions to enable unattended operation, such as setting a power head switch or wall-control switch. For an accessory requiring installation and set-up in order to enable unattended operation, the installation and set-up may be considered satisfying this requirement.

(c) Alarm signal. (1) The operator system shall provide an audible and visual alarm signal.

(2) The alarm shall signal for a minimum of 5 seconds before any unattended closing door movement.

(3) The audible signal shall be heard within the confines of a garage. The audio alarm signals for the alarm specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be generated by devices such as bells, horns, sirens, or buzzers. The signal shall have a frequency in the range of 700 to 3400 Hz, either a cycle of the sound level pulsations of 4 to 5 per second or one continuous tone, a sound level at least 45 dB 10 ft (305 cm) in front of the device over the voltage range of operation.

(4) The visual alarm signal described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be visible within the confines of a garage using a flashing light of at least 40 watt incandescent or 360 lumens.

(d) Controls. (1) During the pre-motion signaling period defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, activation of any user door control (e.g., wall control, wireless remote, keypad) shall prevent the pending unattended door movement. Door movement resulting from activation of a user door control is not prohibited.

(2) Upon activation of a user door control during unattended door movement, the door shall stop, and may reverse the door on the closing cycle. On the opening cycle, activation of a user door control shall stop the door but not reverse it.

(3) If an unattended door travelling in the closing direction is stopped and reversed by an entrapment protection device, the operator system shall be permitted one additional unattended operation attempt to close the door.

(4) After two attempts per paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the operator system shall suspend unattended operation. The operator system shall require a renewed, intended input, via user door control (e.g., wall control wireless remote, keypad) other than the unattended activation device, prior to re-enabling unattended operation.

(e) Entrapment protection. For a moving door, entrapment protection shall comply with §§ 1211.7 and 1211.8.

15. Add new § 1211.15 to read as follows:
§ 1211.15 Vertically moving combination rigid one-piece overhead residential garage door and operator system.

(a) A vertically moving combination rigid one-piece overhead residential garage door and operator system shall comply with the applicable residential garage door operator requirements in this standard and shall additionally comply with the following:

(1) The speed of the door edge during the opening or closing motion shall not exceed 6 in (152 mm) per second.

(2) The system shall be supplied with two additional independent secondary entrapment protection devices complying with Secondary Entrapment Protection, § 1211.8. When photoelectric sensors are used, a minimum of two sensors in addition to a third secondary device shall be supplied. The instructions shall state that one photoelectric sensor shall be positioned to comply with § 1211.11 and the other(s) shall be positioned on the left and right sides of the door to detect solid objects that would be within the space where the door moves as it opens or closes.

(3) A means to manually detach both door operators from the door shall be provided. For systems where the mechanical drive is located on a wall adjacent to the door, the manual detachment means is not required to comply with § 1211.9(a). Instead, the manual detachment means shall be located 5 ft (1.52 m) above the floor, shall not require a torque of more than 5 ft-lb (6.78 N-m) to initiate disconnection when the door is obstructed, and shall be clearly marked with operating instructions adjacent to the mechanism. The gripping surface (handle) shall be colored red and shall be distinguishable from the rest of the operator. The marking which includes instructions for detaching the operator shall be provided in accordance with § 1211.17(a), (b), and (j) as applicable.

(4) A means (interlock) shall be supplied to de-energize the operator whenever the operator is manually detached from the door.

(5) A means (interlock) shall be supplied to de-energize the operator whenever an operable window or access (service) door that is mounted in the garage door is opened perpendicular to the surface of the garage door.

(6) The door shall not move outward from the exterior wall surface during the opening or closing cycle.

(7) The moving parts of the door or door system (mounting hardware, track assembly, and components that make up the door) shall be guarded.

(8) A horizontal track assembly, including installation hardware, shall support a dead load equal to the door weight when the door is in the horizontal position.

(9) Instructions for the installation of operable windows and access (service) doors and the interlocks specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section shall be supplied with the operator.

(b) [Reserved]

16. Revise newly redesignated § 1211.16 to read as follows:
§ 1211.16 Instruction manual.

(a) General. (1) A residential garage door operator shall be provided with an instruction manual. The instruction manual shall give complete instructions for the installation, operation, and user maintenance of the operator.

(2) Instructions that clearly detail installation and adjustment procedures required to effect proper operation of the safety means provided shall be provided with each door operator.

(3) A residential garage door or door operator shall be provided with complete and specific instructions for the correct adjustment of the control mechanism and the need for periodic checking and, if needed, adjustment of the control mechanism so as to maintain satisfactory operation of the door.

(4) The instruction manual shall include the important instructions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. All required text shall be legible and contrast with the background. Upper case letters of required text shall be no less than 5/64 inch (2.0 mm) high and lower case letters shall be no less than 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) high. Heading such as “Important Installation Instructions,” “Important Safety Instructions,” “Save These Instructions” and the words “Warning—To reduce the risk of severe injury or death to persons:” shall be in letters no less than 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) high.

(5) The instructions listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section shall be in the exact words specified or shall be in equally definitive terminology to those specified. No substitutes shall be used for the word “Warning.” The items may be numbered. The first and last items specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be first and last respectively. Other important and precautionary items considered appropriate by the manufacturer may be inserted.

(6) The instructions listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be located immediately prior to the installation instructions. The instructions listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be located immediately prior to user operation and maintenance instructions. In each case, the instructions shall be separate in format from other detailed instructions related to installation, operation and maintenance of the operator. All instructions, except installation instructions, shall be a permanent part of the manual(s).

(7) For an operator or system provided with an external entrapment protection device requiring a non-rechargeable battery, instructions shall be provided with the operator and/or the device for:

(i) The rating, size, number, and type of battery(s) to be used; and

(ii) The proper insertion, polarity, orientation, and replacement of the battery(s).

(8) For an operator or system provided with an external entrapment protection device or system utilizing wireless control, instructions shall be provided with the operator and/or the device for:

(i) The proper method of configuring and initializing the wireless communication link between device and operator;

(ii) The proper orientation, antenna positioning, and mounting location with regard to maintaining communication link between device and operator;

(iii) The maximum range at which the wireless device will operate; and

(iv) The proper location of the device where the transmission of the signals are not obstructed or impeded by building structures, natural landscaping or similar obstruction.

(9) When provided with a detachable supply cord, the operator instructions shall contain complete details concerning proper selection of the power supply cord replacement.

(10) The installation, operation, and maintenance instructions may be provided in electronic read-only media format only, such as CD-ROM, USB flash drive, or company Web site, if the following instructions are additionally provided with the operator in an instruction sheet, manual, booklet, or similar printed material:

(i) Residential garage doors and door operators, instructions of this section, as applicable.

(ii) [Reserved]

(11) The printed instruction material referenced in this section shall contain detailed instructions of how to obtain a printed copy of the material contained in electronic format.

(12) All printed instruction material referenced in this section shall also be provided in the electronic read-only media format.

(13) Instructions of a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system shall specify:

(i) The operator by manufacturer and model;

(ii) The door(s) by manufacturer(s), model(s), and maximum and minimum door width and height required for compliance to § 1211.6(a) and (c); and

(iii) Hardware required for compliance to § 1211.6(a) and (c).

(14) Installation and maintenance instructions of a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system shall indicate how to properly counter-balance the door.

(b) Specific required instructions for residential garage door operators and systems.

(1)(i) The Installation Instructions shall include the following instructions:

Important Installation Instructions

Warning—To reduce the risk of severe injury or death:

1. Read and follow all Installation Instructions.

2. Install only a properly balanced garage door. An improperly balanced door could cause severe injury. Have a qualified service person make repairs to cables, spring assemblies and other hardware before installing opener.

3. Remove all pull ropes and remove, or make inoperative, all locks connected to the garage door before installing opener.

4. Where possible, install door opener 7 feet or more above the floor. For products requiring an emergency release, mount the emergency release within reach, but at least 6 feet above the floor and avoiding contact with vehicles to avoid accidental release.

5. Do not connect opener to source of power until instructed to do so.

6. Locate control button: (a) Within sight of door, (b) at a minimum height of 5 feet above floors, landings, steps, or any other adjacent walking surface so small children cannot reach it, and (c) away from all moving parts of the door.

7. Install Entrapment Warning Label next to the control button in a prominent location. Install the Emergency Release Marking. Attach the marking on or next to the emergency release.

8. After installing opener, the door must reverse when it contacts a 11/2 inch high object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor.

9. For products having a manual release, instruct the end user on the operation of the manual release.

10. For horizontally sliding doors, Item 2 shall be replaced with “Have a qualified service person make repairs and hardware adjustments before installing the opener.”

(ii) In accordance with § 1211.14(a)(2), the installation instructions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for a residential garage door operator intended for use with both sectional and one-piece door that has an unattended operation close feature shall comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section and include:

“WARNING: To reduce the risk of injury to persons—Only enable [+] feature when installed with a sectional door,” where + is the unattended operation function.

(iii) Exception: For operators that automatically sense one piece door operation, the warning in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section is not required.

(iv) For residential garage door operators that do not have permanent connection of the wiring system, the installation instructions shall include the following or equivalent text: “This operator not equipped for permanent wiring. Contact licensed electrician to install a suitable receptacle if one is not available.”

(2) The User Instructions shall include the following instructions:

IMPORTANT SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS

Warning—To reduce the risk of severe injury or death:

1. READ AND FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS.

2. Never let children operate, or play with door controls. Keep the remote control away from children.

3. Always keep the moving door in sight and away from people and objects until it is completely closed. No one should cross the path of the moving door.

4. NEVER GO UNDER A STOPPED PARTIALLY OPEN DOOR.

5. Test door opener monthly. The garage door MUST reverse on contact with a 11/2 inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor. After adjusting either the force or the limit of travel, retest the door opener. Failure to adjust the opener properly may cause severe injury or death.

6. For products requiring an emergency release, if possible, use the emergency release only when the door is closed. Use caution when using this release with the door open. Weak or broken springs may allow the door to fall rapidly, causing injury or death.

7. KEEP GARAGE DOOR PROPERLY BALANCE. See user's manual. An improperly balanced door could cause severe injury or death. Have a qualified service person make repairs to cables, spring assemblies and other hardware.

8. For operator systems equipped with an unattended operation feature, the following statement shall be included: “This operator system is equipped with an unattended operation feature. The door could move unexpectedly. NO ONE SHOULD CROSS THE PATH OF THE MOVING DOOR.”

9. SAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS.

10. For horizontally moving doors, Item 4 shall be replaced with “NEVER GO THROUGH A STOPPED, PARTIALLY OPEN DOOR”.

11. For horizontally moving doors, Item 6 is not required.

12. For horizontally moving doors, Item 7 shall be replaced with “Have a qualified service person make repairs and hardware adjustments before installing the opener.”

13. The installation instructions provided with a combination rigid one-piece overhead residential garage door and operator system shall specify the locations where attachments to the horizontal track shall be made for the purpose of supporting the track.

17. Amend newly redesignated § 1211.17 by: a. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(v); b. Redesignating paragraphs (h) and (i) as paragraphs (i) and (j) respectively; c. Adding new paragraph (h); and d. Adding paragraphs (k) through (m).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1211.17 Field-installed labels.

(g) * * *

(2) * * *

(v) For products equipped with an unattended operation feature, the instructions shall include the following: “This operator system is equipped with an unattended operation feature. The door could move unexpectedly.”

(h)(1) In accordance with § 1211.14(a)(2), the instructions of a residential garage door operator intended for use with both sectional doors and either one-piece or swinging doors and are provided with an unattended operation feature shall comply with paragraph (g) of this section and include the following under the avoidance statements of paragraph (g)(2) of this section:

“Only enable [+] feature when installed with a sectional door.”, or equivalent, where + is the unattended operation closing function.

(2) For operators that automatically sense one piece door operation, this warning is not required.

(k) Both the operator and the door that comprise a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system shall be provided with permanent labels. The labels shall contain the following statement or the equivalent: “WARNING: THIS OPERATOR AND DOOR FUNCTION AS A SYSTEM. IF EITHER THE DOOR OR THE HARDWARE MUST BE REPLACED, THE REPLACEMENT DOOR OR HARDWARE MUST BE IDENTICAL TO THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT WITH RESPECT TO MANUFACTURER AND MODEL TO MAINTAIN THE SAFETY OF THE SYSTEM. SEE INSTRUCTION MANUAL.” The marking shall be visible to the user after installation without the need to remove any covers.

(l) A label specified in paragraph (m) of this section when intended to be affixed during installation shall:

(1) Be provided with the operator or door assembly; and

(2) Have installation instructions of how and where to install the label so that it is visible to the user after installation.

(m) The operator of a combination sectional overhead garage door operator system shall be provided with a permanent marking that contains the following statement or the equivalent: “NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE.”

18. Amend newly redesignated § 1211.18 by: a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (c); b. Redesignating paragraphs (f) through (k) as paragraphs (g) through (l); c. Adding new paragraph (f); d. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (i), (j), and (k); and e. Adding paragraphs (m) and (n).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1211.18 UL marking requirements.

(b) * * *

(3) The voltage, frequency, and input in amperes, VA, or watts. The ampere or VA rating shall be included unless the full-load power factor is 80 percent or more, or, for a cord-connected appliance, unless the rating is 50 W or less. The number of phases shall be indicated when an appliance is for use on a polyphase circuit; and

(c) The date code repetition cycle shall not be less than 20 years.

(f) Exception No 3: The input in amperes or watts may be shown as part of the motor nameplate, if the appliance employs a single motor, the nameplate is readily visible after the appliance has been installed.

(i) For products with user adjustments, a residential garage door operator shall be marked with the word “WARNING” and the following or equivalent, “Risk of entrapment. After adjusting either the force or limits of travel adjustments, insure that the door reverses on a 11/2 inch (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) high obstruction on the floor.” This marking shall be located where visible to the user when making the adjustments.

(j) For a separately supplied accessory, including external entrapment protection device, the instructions, packaging, or marking on the product shall indicate the accessory manufacturer's name and or model number and the type of appliance or appliances with which it is intended to be used—such as a residential garage door operator. Additionally, installation instructions, accompanying specifications sheet, or packaging of the accessory shall identify the appliance or appliances with which it is intended to be used by specifying the manufacturer's name and catalog or model number or by any other positive means to serve the identification purpose.

(k) An appliance provided with terminals or connectors for connection of a separately supplied accessory, such as an external entrapment protection device or system, shall be marked to identify the accessory intended to be connected to the terminals or connectors. The accessory identification shall be by manufacturer's name and catalog or model number or other means to allow for the identification of accessories intended for use with the appliance.

(m)(1) In accordance with § 1211.14(a)(2), a residential garage door operator intended for use with both sectional and one-piece or swinging door that has an unattended operation close feature indicating the function in the carton markings shall include the following carton marking:

“WARNING: To reduce the risk of injury to persons—Only enable [+] feature when installed with sectional door,” where + is the unattended operation closing function.

(2) Exception: For operators that automatically sense one piece door operation, this warning is not required.

(n) A residential garage door operator is not required to be provided with permanent wiring systems when marked with the following or equivalent text: “This operator not equipped for permanent wiring. Contact licensed electrician to install a suitable receptacle if one is not available.” This marking is to be placed adjacent to the power cord entry.

19. Amend newly redesignated § 1211.19 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1211.19 Statutory labeling requirement.

(b) The display of the UL logo or listing mark, and compliance with the date marking requirements stated in § 1211.18 of this subpart, on both the container and the system, shall satisfy the requirements of this subpart.

20. Add figures 1 through 10 to subpart A and the table to subpart A to the end of subpart A to part 1211 to read as follows: BILLING CODE 6355-01-P ER07AP16.031 ER07AP16.032 ER07AP16.033 ER07AP16.034 ER07AP16.035 ER07AP16.036 ER07AP16.037 ER07AP16.038 21. Add subpart D, consisting of § 1211.40, to read as follows: Subpart D—Incorporation by Reference
§ 1211.40 Incorporation by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 302-504-7923 and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

(b) Door and Access Systems Manufacturers' Association, International (DASMA), 1300 Sumner Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115-2851, Telephone: (216) 241-7333, http://www.dasma.com/dasma-pages/D-AS-standards.asp.

(1) ANSI/DASMA 102, Specifications for Sectional Doors, 2011 revision, dated May 19, 2011, into § 1211.6(c).

(2) [Reserved].

(c) National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, Telephone: (800) 344-3555, http://www.nfpa.org/.

(1) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2014 edition, effective August 21, 2013, into § 1211.2(c).

(2) [Reserved].

(d) UL, formerly Underwriters Laboratories, International, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Telephone: 1-888-853-3503, http://ulstandards.ul.com/.

(1) UL 746C, Standard for Safety: Polymeric Materials—Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations, Sixth Edition, dated September 10, 2004, into §§ 1211.10(d) and (e) and 1211.12(c).

(2) UL 991, Standard for Safety: Tests for Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices, Third Edition, dated October 22, 2004, into §§ 1211.4(c) and 1211.5(b)(3).

(3) UL 1998, Standard for Safety: Software in Programmable Components, Third Edition, December 18, 2013, into § 1211.8(f).

Dated: March 30, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-07552 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Labor-Management Standards 29 CFR Parts 405 and 406 RIN 1215-AB79; 1245-AA03 Interpretation of the “Advice” Exemption in Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act AGENCY:

Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor.

ACTION:

Final rule; OMB approval of information collection requirements.

SUMMARY:

The Office of Labor-Management Standards of the Department of Labor (“Department”) published a final rule on March 24, 2016. The final rule revises the Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities Report and the Form LM-10 Employer Report, which are filed with the Department pursuant to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). In the final rule, the Department revises its interpretation of the advice exemption in section 203(c) of the LMRDA to better effectuate section 203's requirement that employers and their labor relations consultants report activities undertaken with an object, directly or indirectly, to persuade employees about how to exercise their rights to union representation and collective bargaining. The revised interpretation provides employees with important information that would enable them to consider the source of the information about union representation directed at them when assessing the merits of the arguments and deciding how to exercise their rights. The Department has also revised the forms and instructions to make them more user-friendly and to require more detailed reporting on employer and consultant agreements. Additionally, with this rule, the Department requires that Forms LM-10 and LM-20 be filed electronically. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Department of Labor announces that the Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements contained in the final rule.

DATES:

On March 25, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act the Department of Labor's information collection request for requirements in 29 CFR parts 402-406 and 408-409, including the employer and labor relations consultant reporting requirements in Parts 405 and 406, as published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2016. See 81 FR 15924. The current expiration date for OMB authorization for this information collection is March 31, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew R. Davis, Chief, Division of Interpretations and Standards, Office of Labor-Management Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, at (202) 693-0123 (this is not a toll-free number).

This document is available through the printed Federal Register and electronically via the http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html Web site.

Copies of this document may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Congress enacted the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), to provide for the disclosure of information on the financial transactions and administrative practices of labor organizations. The statute also provides, under certain circumstances, for reporting by labor organization officers and employees, employers, labor relations consultants, and surety companies. Section 208 of the LMRDA authorizes the Secretary to issues rules and regulations prescribing the form of the required reports. The reporting provisions were devised to implement basic tenets of the LMRDA: To protect the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively, as well as the guarantee of democratic procedures and safeguards within labor organizations, which are designed to protect the basic rights of union members. Section 205 of the LMRDA provides that the reports are public information.

On March 24, 2016, the Department published a final rule that revised the Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities Report and the Form LM-10 Employer Report. See 81 FR 15924. The final rule was based upon comments received in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) published on June 21, 2011. See 76 FR 37292. In the NPRM, the Department proposed to revise its interpretation of the advice exemption in section 203(c) of the LMRDA to better effectuate section 203's requirement that employers and their labor relations consultants report activities undertaken with an object, directly or indirectly, to persuade employees about how to exercise their rights to union representation and collective bargaining. Under the prior interpretation, reporting was effectively triggered only when a consultant communicated directly with employees. This interpretation left a broad category of persuader activities unreported, thereby denying employees important information that would enable them to consider the source of the information about union representation directed at them when assessing the merits of the arguments and deciding how to exercise their rights. The Department proposed to eliminate this reporting gap. The final rule adopts the proposed rule, with modifications, and provides increased transparency to workers without imposing any restraints on the content, timing, or method by which an employer chooses to make known to its employees its position on matters relating to union representation or collective bargaining. The final rule also maintains the LMRDA's section 203(c) advice exemption and the traditional privileges and disclosure requirements associated with the attorney-client relationship. The Department has also revised the forms and instructions to make them more user-friendly and to require more detailed reporting on employer and consultant agreements. Sections of the Department's regulations have also been amended consistent with the instructions. Additionally, with this rule, the Department requires that Forms LM-10 and LM-20 be filed electronically. This rule largely implements the Department's proposal in the NPRM, with modifications of several aspects of the revised instructions as proposed.

The Department's final rule includes information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Specifically, the final rule requires information collections for employers on the Form LM-10 Employer Report and labor relations consultants on the Form LM-20 Agreement and Activities Report, pursuant to LMRDA section 203, 29 U.S.C. 433. These forms are included, along with the other LMRDA forms, within OMB Control Number 1245-0003. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the Department submitted the information collections contained therein to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on February 25, 2016 for approval. See 81 FR 16003. On March 25, 2016, OMB approved the Department's information collection request under Control Number 1245-0003, thus giving effect to the information collection requirements contained in the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2016. The current expiration date for OMB authorization for this information collection is March 31, 2019.

Dated: March 30, 2016. Michael J. Hayes, Director, Office of Labor-Management Standards.
[FR Doc. 2016-07883 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CP-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 155 [Docket No. USCG-2011-0430, Formerly CGD-90-068] RIN 1625-AA02, Formerly RIN 2115-AD66 Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels Carrying Oil AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is finalizing an interim rule that requires vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo to carry discharge removal equipment, install spill prevention coamings, and install emergency towing arrangements. The rule also requires these vessels to have prearranged capability to calculate damage stability in the event of a casualty. By reducing the risk of oil spills, improving vessel oil spill response capabilities, and minimizing the impact of oil spills on the environment, this rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.

DATES:

This final rule is effective May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0430 and are available using the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You can find this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0430 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. David Du Pont, Office of Standards Evaluation and Development (CG-REG), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1497, or email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Regulatory History III. Basis and Purpose IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes V. Discussion of the Rule VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Abbreviations DHS Department of Homeland Security DRE Discharge removal equipment E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register NOI Notice of intent OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat 484, August 18, 1990) § Section U.S.C. United States Code VRP Vessel response plan II. Regulatory History

This final rule was preceded by several rulemaking documents. On August 30, 1991, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit information to assist the Coast Guard in development of proposed rules that implement the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 1 (OPA 90) mandate for discharge removal equipment (DRE).2 On September 29, 1992, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed to establish DRE regulations.3 On December 22, 1993, the Coast Guard published an interim final rule (IFR) that established DRE requirements for on-deck spills, and also required vessels to install spill prevention coamings, to install emergency towing arrangements, and to have a prearranged capability to calculate damage stability in the event of a casualty.4 On March 27, 2012, the Coast Guard published a notice of intent (NOI) to finalize with request for comments.5 Several other rulemaking-related documents were published. For a complete list, see the Basis and Purpose section of the 2012 NOI.

1 Public Law 101-380, 104 Stat. 484 (August 18, 1990).

2 56 FR 43534 (Aug. 30, 1991).

3 57 FR 44912 (Sept. 29, 1992).

4 58 FR 67988 (Dec. 22, 1993).

5 77 FR 18151 (Mar. 27, 2012).

III. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for this rule is OPA 90 section 4202(a)(6), which amended section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)) by, among other things, adding a new paragraph (6) to require vessels operating on the navigable waters of the United States and carrying oil or a hazardous substance in bulk as cargo to carry appropriate DRE on board.

The purpose of this rule is to finalize the interim rule, which was intended to reduce the risk of oil spills, improve vessel oil spill response capabilities, and minimize the impact of oil spills on the environment.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received one submission containing two individual comments in response to the NOI. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

One comment supported finalizing the DRE rulemaking, and we agree with that view.

One comment recommended that the Coast Guard require vessel response plans (VRP) and include DRE procedures and training in that requirement. While outside the scope of this rulemaking, we note that Coast Guard regulations already include VRP requirements that incorporate DRE procedures and training. In a separate rulemaking finalized in 1996, the Coast Guard issued VRP requirements for tank vessels (see 61 FR 1081 (January 12, 1996)). The VRP regulations include a requirement to develop procedures for the crew to deploy DRE (see 33 CFR 155.1035(c)(3)) and for the exercise of the entire response plan every 3 years (see 33 CFR 155.1060(a)(5)).

This final rule makes no changes to the interim rule.

V. Discussion of the Rule

The Coast Guard is finalizing the interim rule we issued in 1993. The interim rule amended 33 CFR 155.140, incorporating third party references applicable to all of 33 CFR part 155, and added 33 CFR 155.200, 155.205, 155.210, 155.215, 155.220, 155.225, 155.230, 155.235, 155.240, and 155.245. It also amended 33 CFR 155.310. Sections 155.200 through 155.310 appear in part 155, subpart B, Vessel Equipment. The interim rule's regulations have been in place more than 20 years, and industry has long since been in compliance. Each of the sections added or amended by the interim rule has since been amended at least once by other rulemakings, in part to respond to public comments on the interim rule, but except as discussed below, each retains the general scope it had as a result of the interim rule. This final rule makes no changes to these sections, as subsequently amended.

Section 155.200 provides definitions applicable to subpart B. The section was subsequently amended in 2002 and 2008.

Section 155.205 requires oil tankers and offshore oil barges, with an overall length of 400 feet or more, to carry and have available for use equipment and supplies for containing and removing on-deck oil cargo spills. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.

Section 155.210 requires oil tankers and offshore oil barges, with an overall length of less than 400 feet, to carry and have available for use equipment and supplies for containing and removing on-deck oil cargo spills. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.

Section 155.215 contains requirements for discharge containment and removal equipment and supplies on inland oil barges. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.

Section 155.220 contains requirements for discharge containment and removal equipment and supplies on vessels carrying oil as a secondary cargo. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.

Section 155.225 requires oil tankers and offshore oil barges to be properly equipped for the internal transfer of cargo to tanks or other spaces within the vessel's cargo block. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.

Section 155.230 contains emergency towing capability requirements for offshore oil barges. Section 155.230, as subsequently amended in 2000, 2009, 2010, and 2014, now contains a range of control system requirements for all tank barges, including emergency towing capability requirements.

Section 155.235, as subsequently amended in 1997 and 2009, contains emergency towing capability requirements for oil tankers of not less than 20,000 deadweight tons.

Section 155.240 requires oil tankers and offshore oil barges to have access to onshore, computerized equipment to calculate a damaged vessel's stability and residual structural strength. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.

Section 155.245 contains damage stability and residual strength requirements for inland oil barges. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.

The amendment to § 155.310 revised coaming and oil draining requirements to the section's oil discharge containment requirements. The section was subsequently amended in 1998.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

The interim rule (as amended) contains material incorporated by reference (IBR). The Director of the Federal Register previously approved all of this IBR material in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866.

This rule finalizes the 1993 interim rule, and does not change or add new requirements to that rule or the subsequent amendments listed at the end of this document. Owners and operators have been in compliance since 1993 with the requirements this rule will finalize. The comments of the 2012 notice of intent required no change to the final rule. Therefore, the actual net costs of the final rule are zero.

The Coast Guard has developed an updated analysis of the impacts of the DRE requirements compared against the pre-statutory baseline (1993). The intent of the updated analysis is to use the most up-to-date data to present an impact analysis had industry not complied with the 1993 IFR. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

B. Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule finalizes the 1993 interim rule, and does not change or add new requirements. As a rule finalizing a previous interim rule, Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 requirements do not apply. Nonetheless, as the actual net costs of the final rule are zero, the Coast Guard believes that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. This rule involves regulations concerning the equipping of vessels. 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.

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).

D. Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

E. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below.

This rule is promulgated under the authority of OPA 90 Title IV, section 4202(a)(6), as codified in 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(6). 33 U.S.C. 1321(o) contains a savings clause which states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as preempting any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirement or liability with respect to the discharge of oil or hazardous substance into any waters within such State, or with respect to any removal activities related to such discharge.” Although generally vessel equipping, operation, and manning requirements are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States, (see the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000)), the Coast Guard believes that the savings clause in 33 U.S.C. 1321(o) is a limited exception to that general preemption principle. As long as the State discharge removal equipment requirement is in accordance with the principles of Locke (e.g., is limited to the regulation and protection of local waterways), it will not be preempted unless compliance with both State and Federal law is impossible, or when the State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objective of Congress. The Coast Guard does not intend to preempt more stringent State discharge removal equipment requirements unless those requirements conflict with Coast Guard requirements. At this time, the Coast Guard has no knowledge of any conflicting State discharge removal equipment requirements. This rule also does not implicate those fields saved to certain State regulation under Sections 702 and 711 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132.

F. 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.

G. Taking of Private Property

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).

H. Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

This 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.

K. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule uses the voluntary consensus standards listed in 33 CFR 155.140.

M. 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 concluded that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction and under section 6.b. of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48243, 48245, July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations concerning the equipping of vessels. In addition, it implements a Congressional mandate (section 4202(a) of OPA 90). An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155

Alaska, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 155 that was published at 58 FR 67988 on December 22, 1993, and amended at:

(a) 59 FR 3749 on January 26, 1994;

(b) 61 FR 33666 on June 28, 1996;

(c) 62 FR 51194 on September 30, 1997;

(d) 63 FR 35531 on June 30, 1998;

(e) 63 FR 71763 on December 30, 1998;

(f) 64 FR 67176 on December 1, 1999;

(g) 65 FR 31811 on May 19, 2000;

(h) 67 FR 58524 on September 17, 2002;

(i) 69 FR 18801 on April 9, 2004;

(j) 73 FR 35015 on June 19, 2008;

(k) 73 FR 79316 on December 29, 2008;

(l) 73 FR 80648 on December 31, 2008;

(m) 74 FR 45026 on August 31, 2009;

(n) 75 FR 36285 on June 25, 2010;

(o) 78 FR 13249 on February 27, 2013;

(p) 78 FR 60122 on September 30, 2013;

(q) 79 FR 38436 on July 17, 2014; and,

(r) 80 FR 5934 on February 4, 2015.

is adopted as a final rule without change.

Dated: April 1, 2016. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-07977 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 164 [Docket No. USCG-2005-21869] RIN 1625-AA99 Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System; AIS Information Collection AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; information collection approval and announcement of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard announces that it has received approval from the Office of Management and Budget for an information collection request associated with automatic identification system requirements in a final rule we published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015. In that rule we stated we would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of these collection-of-information related paragraphs. This rule establishes today as the effective date for those paragraphs.

DATES:

Revised paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 164.46, published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), are effective April 7, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jorge Arroyo, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-3), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1563, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Viewing Documents Associated With This Rule

To view the final rule published on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other documents in the docket for this rulemaking, go to www.regulations.gov, type the docket number, USCG-2005-21869, in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” in the first item listed. Use the following link to go directly to the docket: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-21869.

Background

On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard published a final rule that revised or amended existing notice of arrival and automatic identification system requirements. 80 FR 5282. Our final rule delayed the effective date of § 164.46(b) and (c) because these paragraphs contain collection of information provisions that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. On March 29, 2016, OMB approved the collection assigned OMB Control Number 1625-0112, Enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness via Electronic Transmission of Vessel Transit Data. Accordingly, we announce that paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 164.46 are effective April 7, 2016. The approval for this collection of information expires on March 31, 2019.

This document is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 46 U.S.C. 70114. With respect to the other collection of information associated with the January 2015 final rule—OMB Control Number 1625-0100, Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival, on August 20, 2015—we published a document (80 FR 50576) that announced OMB's approval and the effective date of notice of arrival requirements in §§ 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, and 160.208(a) and (c) associated with that collection.

Dated: April 1, 2016. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-07958 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 668 RIN 1840-AD14 [Docket ID ED-2015-OPE-0020] Program Integrity and Improvement; Corrections AGENCY:

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final rule; corrections.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Education published final regulations for Program Integrity and Improvement in the Federal Register on October 30, 2015 (80 FR 67125). This document corrects errors in the final regulations.

DATES:

Effective July 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ashley Higgins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6W234, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6097.

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Federal Register of October 30, 2015 (80 FR 67125):

(a) In § 668.164(e)(2), we inadvertently limited the permissible use of any personally identifiable information about a student to activities that support making payments of title IV funds, when institutions must make other types of payments to students. Accordingly, on page 67197, in the middle column, we correct § 668.164(e)(2)(ii)(B) of the regulations by replacing the phrase “of title IV, HEA program funds” with the phrase “to the student”.

(b) Under the final regulations, institutions with Tier one arrangements must make public both the full contract and selected contract data. In the regulatory text, we inadvertently omitted reference to the contract data in § 668.164(e)(2)(viii). Accordingly, on page 67197, in the right-hand column, we correct § 668.164(e)(2)(viii) of the regulations by adding the words “and contract data as described in paragraph (e)(2)(vii) of this section” after the word “contract”.

(c) In § 668.164(e)(3) of the regulations, we inadvertently limited the information an institution may share to enrollment information relating to title IV recipients, when institutions are permitted to share under the final regulations such information for all students. Accordingly, on page 67198, in the left-hand column, we correct § 668.164(e)(3) by replacing “title IV recipients' ” with “students' ”.

(d) In § 668.164(f)(4)(i)(A) of the regulations we incorrectly omitted a word. Accordingly, on page 67198, in the middle column, we correct § 668.164(f)(4)(i)(A) by adding “information” after “identifiable”.

(e) In § 668.164(f)(4)(vi) of the regulations, we inadvertently included a redundant phrase. Accordingly, on page 67198, in the right-hand column, we correct § 668.164(f)(4)(vi) by replacing the phrase “If the institution is located in a State, ensure” with the word “Ensure”.

(f) In § 668.164(f)(4)(xii) of the regulations, we inadvertently implied that § 668.164(d)(4)(i) was a voluntary requirement for institutions with a Tier two arrangement that falls below the threshold number of students. Accordingly, on page 67199, in the left-hand column, we correct § 668.164(f)(4)(xii) by adding the word “applicable” before the word “provisions” and removing the reference to “(d)(4)(i), (f)(4), and (f)(5)” and adding in its place “(f)(4) and (5)”.

(g) In § 668.164(f)(5) of the regulations, we inadvertently limited the information an institution may share to enrollment information relating to title IV recipients, when institutions are permitted to share under the final regulations such information for all students. Accordingly, on page 67199, in the left-hand column, we correct § 668.164(f)(5) by replacing the phrase “title IV recipients' ” with the word “students' ”.

(h) In § 668.165(a)(2), we inadvertently omitted the new definition set out in § 668.161. Accordingly, on page 67200, in the middle column, we correct § 668.165(a)(2) by removing the phrase “student's account at the institution” and replacing it with the phrase “student ledger account”.

(i) In § 668.166(a)(2), we inadvertently omitted the new definition set out in § 668.161. Accordingly, on page 67201, in the right-hand column, we correct § 668.166(a)(2) by removing the phrase “Federal account” and replacing it with the phrase “depository account”.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, it is the Secretary's practice to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the regulatory changes in this document are necessary to correct errors and do not establish any new substantive rules. Therefore, the Secretary has determined that publication of a proposed rule is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

In the Federal Register of October 30, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-27145 (80 FR 67125), the following corrections are made:

§ 668.164 [Corrected]
1. On page 67197, in the middle column, correct § 668.164(e)(2)(ii)(B) by removing the phrase “of title IV, HEA program funds” and adding in its place the phrase “to the student”.
2. On page 67197, in the right-hand column, correct § 668.164(e)(2)(viii) by adding the words “and contract data as described in paragraph (e)(2)(vii) of this section” after the word “contract”. 3. On page 67198, in the left-hand column, correct § 668.164(e)(3) by removing “title IV recipients' ” and add in its place “students' ”. 4. On page 67198, in the middle column, correct § 668.164(f)(4)(i)(A) by adding “information” after “identifiable”. 5. On page 67198, in the right-hand column, correct § 668.164(f)(4)(vi) by removing the phrase “If the institution is located in a State, ensure” and adding in its place the word “Ensure”. 6. On page 67199, in the left-hand column, correct § 668.164(f)(4)(xii) by adding the word “applicable” before the word “provisions” and removing the reference to “(d)(4)(i), (f)(4), and (f)(5)” and adding in its place “(f)(4) and (5)”. 7. On page 67199, in the left-hand column, correct § 668.164(f)(5) by removing the phrase “title IV recipients' ” and adding in its place the word “students' ”.
§ 668.165 [Corrected]
8. On page 67200, in the middle column, correct § 668.165(a)(2) introductory text by removing the phrase “student's account at the institution” and adding in its place the phrase “student ledger account”.
§ 668.166 [Corrected]
9. On page 67201, in the right-hand column, correct § 668.166(a)(2) by removing the phrase “Federal account” and adding in its place the phrase “depository account”.
Dated: April 4, 2016. John B. King, Jr., Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-08053 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 668 [Docket ID ED-2015-OPE-0020] RIN 1840-AD14 Program Integrity and Improvement AGENCY:

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Announcement of early implementation date.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Education is establishing the date for early implementation of certain regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).

DATES:

The early implementation date for §§ 668.2(b) and 668.163(a)(1) and (c), published in the Federal Register of October 30, 2015 (80 FR 67126), is April 7, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For repeat coursework: Vanessa Freeman, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6W236, Washington, DC 20202-1100. Telephone: (202) 453-7378 or by email at: [email protected]; or Aaron Washington, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6W246, Washington, DC 20202-1100. Telephone: (202) 453-7241 or by email at: [email protected] For cash management: Ashley Higgins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6W234, Washington, DC 20202-1100. Telephone: (202) 453-6097 or by email at: [email protected]

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On October 30, 2015, we published final rules in the Federal Register (80 FR 67126) amending the cash management regulations and other sections of the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations issued under the HEA.

Section 482(c) of the HEA requires that regulations affecting programs under title IV be published in final form by November 1 prior to the start of the award year (July 1) to which they apply. However, that section of the HEA also permits the Secretary to designate any regulation as one that an entity subject to the regulations may choose to implement earlier, and to specify the conditions for early implementation. The Secretary is exercising the authority under Section 482(c) of the HEA to early implement specific sections of the Program Integrity and Improvement regulations.

Section 668.2(b) specifies that in a term-based program a student may repeat any coursework previously taken in the program but the coursework may not include more than one repetition of a previously passed course. This provision applies to graduate and professional as well as undergraduate students. Section 668.163(a)(1) specifies that educational institutions must maintain title IV, HEA program funds in depository accounts and guidelines that domestic and foreign educational institutions must follow in selecting this account. Finally, § 668.163(c) states that educational institutions in a State must maintain title IV, HEA program funds in an interest-bearing depository account. This section also explains in which instances interest on funds can be retained or must be remitted to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Implementation Date of These Regulations

The Secretary is exercising the authority under section 482(c) of the HEA to designate the following amended regulations in 34 CFR part 668 for early implementation beginning on April 7, 2016:

(1) Section 668.2(b) (Retaking Coursework);

(2) Section 668.163(a)(1) (Depository account); and

(3) Section 668.163(c) (Interest-bearing depository account).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting Ashley Higgins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6W234, Washington, DC 20202-1100. Telephone: (202) 453-6097 or by email: [email protected]

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Program Authority:

20 U.S.C. 1098a.

Dated: April 4, 2016. John B. King, Jr., Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-08055 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0573, 0574, 0578, 0579 and 0580; FRL-9944-36-OLEM] National Priorities List AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“the EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds five sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL.

DATES:

The document is effective on May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:

• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.; William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.

The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:

• Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.

• Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.

• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.

• Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8799.

• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.

• Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.

• Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPR/SPEB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7097.

• Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.

• Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947-4250.

• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email: [email protected] Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are sites listed on the NPL? E. What happens to sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites? G. How are sites removed from the NPL? H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure? K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing? II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule? B. What documents are available for review at the EPA headquarters docket? C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets? D. How do I access the documents? E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites? III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”) and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.

• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.

The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions” (40 CFR 300.5). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.

Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up?

In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-6.

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.

A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.htm.

II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?

Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through http://www.regulations.gov (see table below for docket identification numbers). Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section II.D.

Docket Identification Numbers by Site Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. PCE Former Dry Cleaner Atlantic, IA EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0573. Old American Zinc Plant Fairmont City, IL EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0574. Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co Norfolk, NE EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0578. Former Kil-Tone Company Vineland, NJ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0579. Lea and West Second Street Roswell, NM EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0580. B. What documents are available for review at the EPA headquarters docket?

The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to compute the score and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site.

C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets?

The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

D. How do I access the documents?

You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see ADDRESSES section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?

You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in the beginning portion of this document).

III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL

This final rule adds the following five sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL based on HRS score.

General Superfund section:

State Site name City/county IA PCE Former Dry Cleaner Atlantic. IL Old American Zinc Plant Fairmont City. NE Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co Norfolk. NJ Former Kil-Tone Company Vineland. NM Lea and West Second Street Roswell. B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?

The EPA is adding five sites to the NPL in this final rule, all to the general Superfund section. All of the sites were proposed for addition to the NPL on September 30, 2015 (80 FR 58658).

Three of the sites received no comments. They are PCE Former Dry Cleaner in Atlantic, IA; Old American Zinc Plant in Fairmont City, IL; and, Lea and West Second Street in Roswell, NM.

EPA received one comment supporting listing of the Kil-Tone Company in Vineland, NJ. In response, EPA is adding the Former Kil-Tone Company site to the NPL.

EPA received HRS-specific comments on the Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co in Norfolk, NE. Those comments have been addressed in a response to comments support document available in the public docket concurrently with the publication of this rule.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

K. Congressional Review Act

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: March 28, 2016. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.

For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for Part 300 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by adding entries for “PCE Former Dry Cleaner”, “Old American Zinc Plant”, “Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co”, “Former Kil-Tone Company” and “Lea and West Second Street” in alphabetical order by state to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1—General Superfund Section State Site name City/county Notes (a) *         *         *         *         *         *         * IA PCE Former Dry Cleaner Atlantic *         *         *         *         *         *         * IL Old American Zinc Plant Fairmont City *         *         *         *         *         *         * NE Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co Norfolk *         *         *         *         *         *         * NJ Former Kil-Tone Company Vineland *         *         *         *         *         *         * NM Lea and West Second Street Roswell *         *         *         *         *         *         * (a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
[FR Doc. 2016-07672 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 62 [Docket ID: FEMA-2016-0009] RIN 1660-AA88 National Flood Insurance Program: Update To Address Information for Claims Appeals AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is revising its regulations to remove address information for the National Flood Insurance Program's claims appeals process.

DATES:

This final rule is effective April 7, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudia Murphy, Policyholder Services Division Director, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3020, 202-646-2775, or (email) [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Removal of Address

In accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations at title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 62, subpart B, once a flood insurer participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) issues a final claim determination, a policyholder may appeal an action related to the claim taken by the insurer, a FEMA employee, or insurance agent. To pursue an appeal, a policyholder must submit a written appeal to FEMA within 60 days from the date of the decision. See 44 CFR 62.20(e)(1).

The current regulations at § 62.20(e)(1) indicate that policyholders should submit their appeal to: DHS/FEMA, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Insurance Administrator, 1800 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-MS3010. FEMA is removing this address from the regulations because the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA), which handles claims appeals, is relocating from Arlington, Virginia to Washington, DC, and the address in the regulations will no longer be valid. Beginning April 4, 2016, policyholders should submit written appeals to FEMA at the following address: Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA), DHS/FEMA, 400 C Street SW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20472-3020. FEMA is also introducing the option to submit written appeals via electronic mail at [email protected]

FEMA will make this information available on its Web site at www.fema.gov. FEMA has decided to no longer include the address in the regulations, and instead to continue providing the address via its Web site and requiring participating flood insurance carriers to include the address in all denial letters,1 so that it is more readily available to policyholders and so that FEMA can more easily update the address.

1See FEMA, Memorandum For: WYO Principal Coordinators and the NFIP Direct Servicing Agent, FIMA Address Change, W-16011 (March 8, 2016), http://www.nfipiservice.com/Stakeholder/pdf/bulletin/w-16011.pdf.

II. Regulatory Analysis a. Administrative Procedure Act

FEMA did not publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this regulation. FEMA finds that this rule is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act's (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) notice and comment rulemaking requirements because it is purely procedural in nature. This rule is making a technical change to ensure the accuracy of FEMA's regulations as FIMA relocates from Arlington, Virginia to Washington, DC. FEMA believes this technical amendment is not controversial and will not result in any adverse comments. These changes do not confer any substantive rights, benefits, or obligations; therefore, this rule will have no substantive effect on the public.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), FEMA has determined it has good cause to make this technical amendment effective immediately, so that appellants are aware of the new address as soon as possible and their appeals will be received at the correct address.

b. Executive Order 12866, as Amended, Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), accordingly FEMA has not submitted it to the Office of Management and Budget for review. As this rule involves a non-substantive change, FEMA expects that it will not impose any costs on the public.

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires that special consideration be given to the effects of proposed regulations on small entities. This rule does not require a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

d. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3501-3520), FEMA reviewed this final rule and has determined that there are no new collections of information contained therein.

e. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), 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.

f. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. FEMA has analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

g. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking

FEMA has sent this final rule to the Congress and to the Government Accountability Office under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (Act), Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 873 (March 29, 1996) (5 U.S.C. 804). The rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of that Act and will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more. Moreover, it will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. FEMA does not expect that it will have “significant adverse effects” on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 62

Claims, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is amending 44 CFR part 62 as follows:

PART 62—SALE OF INSURANCE AND ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

2. In § 62.20, revise paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
§ 62.20 Claims appeals.

(e) * * *

(1) Submit a written appeal to FEMA within 60 days from the date of the decision.

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-08025 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-A6-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 12 [PS Docket No. 14-174, FCC 15-98] Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; announcement of effective date.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications Report and Order's (Order) consumer disclosure requirement. This document is consistent with the Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules.

DATES:

Effective date: The amendments to 47 CFR 12.5(d), published at 80 FR 62470, October 16, 2015 are effective August 5, 2016.

Compliance date: For providers with fewer than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines, April 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda M. Pintro, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7490, or email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document announces that, on March 21, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the subscriber notification rules contained in the Commission's Order, FCC 15-98, published at 80 FR 62470, October 16, 2015. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1217. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1217, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected] To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 21, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 12.

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

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1217.

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

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-1217.

OMB Approval Date: March 21, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications Report and Order (PS Docket No. 14-174, FCC 15-98).

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 570 respondents; 570 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: Estimated time per respondent will vary widely by respondent because of differences in their current level of backup power provisioning. Some respondents may not need to expend any resources to comply with the third party disclosure requirement, because they are already providing the service. Others may have to build the service from the ground up. And, still others may currently be providing some, but not all of the required disclosure. Consequently, a respondent may spend zero to 70 hours per initial notification.

Frequency of Response: Respondents are required to disclose the information to subscribers at the point of sale and annually thereafter.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 1, 4(i), and 251(e)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 251(e)(3); section 101 of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-283, 47 U.S.C. 615a-1; and section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.

Total Annual Burden: 1,888 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals.

Privacy Act: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: For over one hundred years, consumers have trusted that they will hear a dial tone in an emergency even when the power is out. Now, as networks transition away from copper-based, line-powered technology, many are aware of the innovation this transition has spurred in emergency services, but many consumers remain unaware that they must take action to ensure that dial tone's availability in the event of a commercial power outage. The vital importance of the continuity of 911 communications, and the Commission's duty to promote safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, favor action to ensure that all consumers understand the risks associated with non-line-powered 911 service, know how to protect themselves from such risks, and have a meaningful opportunity to do so. Accordingly, on August 6, 2015, the Commission adopted the Order to promote continued access to 911 during commercial power outages, by requiring providers of facilities-based, fixed residential voice services that are not line powered to offer subscribers the option to purchase a backup power solution capable of 8 hours of standby power, and within three years, an additional solution capable of 24 hours of backup power. The Order also promotes consumer education and choice by requiring covered providers to disclose to subscribers, information about: (a) Availability of backup power sources; (b) service limitations with and without backup power during a power outage; (c) purchase and replacement options; (d) expected backup power duration; (c) proper usage and storage conditions for the backup power source; (e) subscriber backup power self-testing and monitoring instructions; and (f) backup power warranty details, if any.

Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07845 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 150715616-6300-02] RIN 0648-XE062 Pacific Island Fisheries; 2015-16 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final specifications.

SUMMARY:

NMFS specifies an annual catch limit (ACL) of 326,000 lb for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2015-16 fishing year. As an accountability measure (AM), if the ACL is projected to be reached, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year. The ACL and AM specifications support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.

DATES:

The final specifications are effective from May 9, 2016, through August 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel. 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or www.wpcouncil.org. Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for this action, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0090, are available from www.regulations.gov, or from Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Dunlap, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Through this action, NMFS is specifying an ACL of 326,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI for the 2015-16 fishing year. The Council recommended this ACL, based on the best available scientific, commercial, and other information, taking into account the associated risk of overfishing. This ACL is 20,000 lb lower than the ACL set for the 2014-15 fishing year. The MHI Management Subarea is the portion of U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around the Hawaiian Archipelago lying to the east of 161°20′ W. longitude. The Deep 7 bottomfish consist of onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapuupuu (Hyporthodus quernus).

The MHI bottomfish fishing year started September 1, 2015, and is currently open. NMFS will monitor the fishery, and if the fishery reaches the ACL before August 31, 2016, NMFS will, as an associated accountability measure authorized in 50 CFR 665.4(f), close the non-commercial and commercial fisheries for Deep 7 bottomfish in Federal waters through August 31. During a fishery closure for Deep 7 bottomfish, no person may fish for, possess, or sell any of these fish in the MHI. There is no prohibition on fishing for or selling other (non-Deep 7) bottomfish throughout the year. All other management measures continue to apply in the MHI bottomfish fishery.

You may review additional background information on this action in the preamble to the proposed specifications (81 FR 8884; February 23, 2016); we do not repeat that information here.

Comments and Responses

The comment period for the proposed specifications ended on March 9, 2016. NMFS received no public comments.

Changes From the Proposed Specifications

There are no changes in the final specifications from the proposed specifications.

Classification

The Regional Administrator, NMFS PIR, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed specification stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS published the factual basis for certification in the proposed specifications, and does not repeat it here. NMFS did not receive comments regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and one was not prepared.

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: April 1, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07971 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
81 67 Thursday, April 7, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0013] Energy Conservation Program: Data Collection and Comparison With Forecasted Unit Sales of Five Lamp Types AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Notice of data availability.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is informing the public of its collection of shipment data and creation of spreadsheet models to provide comparisons between actual and benchmark estimate unit sales of five lamp types (i.e., rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps) that are currently not subject to energy conservation standards. As the actual sales are not greater than 200 percent of the forecasted estimate for 2015 (i.e., the threshold triggering a rulemaking for an energy conservation standard) for rough service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps, DOE has determined that no regulatory action pertaining to such lamps is necessary at this time. However, DOE will continue to track sales data for these exempted lamps. As discussed in the results under section IV of this document, the actual unit sales for vibration service lamps are 272.5 percent of the benchmark unit sales estimate. Therefore, an accelerated energy conservation standard rulemaking for vibration service lamps must be completed by December 31, 2016. Relating to this activity, DOE has prepared, and is making available on its Web site, a spreadsheet showing the comparisons of anticipated versus actual sales, as well as the model used to generate the original sales estimates.

DATES:

DOE has determined that an accelerated energy conservation standard rulemaking for vibration service lamps must be completed by December 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The spreadsheet is available online at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=16.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected]

Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Definitions A. Rough Service Lamps B. Vibration Service Lamps C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps D. 2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps III. Comparison Methodology IV. Comparison Results A. Rough Service Lamps B. Vibration Service Lamps C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps D. 2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps V. Conclusion VI. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 I. Background

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140) was enacted on December 19, 2007. Among the requirements of subtitle B (Lighting Energy Efficiency) of title III of EISA 2007 were provisions directing DOE to collect, analyze, and monitor unit sales of five lamp types (i.e., rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps). In relevant part, section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 325(l) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) by adding paragraph (4)(B), which generally directs DOE, in consultation with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), to: (1) Collect unit sales data for each of the five lamp types for calendar years 1990 through 2006 in order to determine the historical growth rate for each lamp type; and (2) construct a model for each of the five lamp types based on coincident economic indicators that closely match the historical annual growth rates of each lamp type to provide a neutral comparison benchmark estimate of future unit sales. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(B)) Section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraph (4)(C), which, in relevant part, directs DOE to collect unit sales data for calendar years 2010 through 2025, in consultation with NEMA, for each of the five lamp types. DOE must then: (1) Compare the actual lamp sales in that year with the benchmark estimate; (2) determine if the unit sales projection has been exceeded; and (3) issue the findings within 90 days of the end of the analyzed calendar year. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(C))

On December 18, 2008, DOE issued a notice of data availability (NODA) for the Report on Data Collection and Estimated Future Unit Sales of Five Lamp Types (hereafter the “2008 analysis”), which was published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2008. 73 FR 79072. The 2008 analysis presented the 1990 through 2006 shipment data collected in consultation with NEMA, the spreadsheet model DOE constructed for each lamp type, and the benchmark unit sales estimates for 2010 through 2025. On April 4, 2011, DOE published a NODA in the Federal Register announcing the availability of updated spreadsheet models presenting the benchmark estimates from the 2008 analysis and the collected sales data from 2010 for the first annual comparison. 76 FR 18425. Similarly, DOE published NODAs in the Federal Register in the following four years announcing the updated spreadsheet models and sales data for the annual comparisons. 77 FR 16183 (March 20, 2012); 78 FR 15891 (March 13, 2013); 79 FR 15058 (March 18, 2014); 80 FR 13791 (March 17, 2015). This NODA presents the sixth annual comparison; specifically, section IV of this report compares the actual unit sales against benchmark unit sales estimates for 2015.1

1 The notices and related documents for the 2008 analysis and successive annual comparisons, including this NODA, are available through the DOE Web site at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=16.

EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) through (4)(H), which state that if DOE finds that the unit sales for a given lamp type in any year between 2010 and 2025 exceed the benchmark estimate of unit sales by at least 100 percent (i.e., are greater than 200 percent of the anticipated sales), then DOE must take regulatory action to establish an energy conservation standard for such lamps. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D) through (H)) For 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, DOE must adopt a statutorily prescribed energy conservation standard. For the other four types of lamps, the statute requires DOE to initiate an accelerated rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards. If the Secretary does not complete the accelerated rulemakings within one year from the end of the previous calendar year, there is a “backstop requirement” for each lamp type, which would establish energy conservation standard levels and related requirements by statute. Id.

As in the 2008 analysis and previous comparisons, DOE uses manufacturer shipments as a surrogate for unit sales in this NODA because manufacturer shipment data are tracked and aggregated by the trade organization, NEMA. DOE believes that annual shipments track closely with actual unit sales of these five lamp types, as DOE presumes that retailer inventories remain constant from year to year. DOE believes this is a reasonable assumption because the markets for these five lamp types have existed for many years, thereby enabling manufacturers and retailers to establish appropriate inventory levels that reflect market demand. In addition, increasing unit sales must eventually result in increasing manufacturer shipments. This is the same methodology presented in DOE's 2008 analysis and subsequent annual comparisons, and DOE did not receive any comments challenging this assumption or the general approach.

II. Definitions A. Rough Service Lamps

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “rough service lamp.” A “rough service lamp” means a lamp that—(i) has a minimum of 5 supports with filament configurations that are C-7A, C-11, C-17, and C-22 as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th edition of the IESNA [Illuminating Engineering Society of North America] Lighting handbook, or similar configurations where lead wires are not counted as supports; and (ii) is designated and marketed specifically for “rough service” applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for rough service. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X))

As noted above, rough service incandescent lamps must have a minimum of five filament support wires (not counting the two connecting leads at the beginning and end of the filament), and must be designated and marketed for “rough service” applications. This type of incandescent lamp is typically used in applications where the lamp would be subject to mechanical shock or vibration while it is operating. Standard incandescent lamps have only two support wires (which also serve as conductors), one at each end of the filament coil. When operating (i.e., when the tungsten filament is glowing so hot that it emits light), a standard incandescent lamp's filament is brittle, and rough service applications could cause it to break prematurely. To address this problem, lamp manufacturers developed lamp designs that incorporate additional support wires along the length of the filament to ensure that it has support not just at each end, but at several other points as well. The additional support protects the filament during operation and enables longer operating life for incandescent lamps in rough service applications. Typical applications for these rough service lamps might include commercial hallways and stairwells, gyms, storage areas, and security areas.

B. Vibration Service Lamps

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “vibration service lamp.” A “vibration service lamp” means a lamp that—(i) has filament configurations that are C-5, C-7A, or C-9, as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th Edition of the IESNA Lighting Handbook or similar configurations; (ii) has a maximum wattage of 60 watts; (iii) is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or less; and (iv) is designated and marketed specifically for vibration service or vibration-resistant applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being vibration service only. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA))

The statute mentions three examples of filament configurations for vibration service lamps in Figure 6-12 of the IESNA Lighting Handbook, one of which, C-7A, is also listed in the statutory definition of “rough service lamp.” The definition of “vibration service lamp” requires that such lamps have a maximum wattage of 60 watts and be sold at a retail level in packages of two lamps or fewer. Vibration service lamps must be designated and marketed for vibration service or vibration-resistant applications. As the name suggests, this type of incandescent lamp is generally used in applications where the incandescent lamp would be subject to a continuous low level of vibration, such as in a ceiling fan light kit. In such applications, standard incandescent lamps without additional filament support wires may not achieve the full rated life, because the filament wire is brittle and would be subject to breakage at typical operating temperature. To address this problem, lamp manufacturers typically use a more malleable tungsten filament to avoid damage and short circuits between coils.

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “3-way incandescent lamp.” A “3-way incandescent lamp” includes an incandescent lamp that—(i) employs 2 filaments, operated separately and in combination, to provide 3 light levels; and (ii) is designated on the lamp packaging and marketing materials as being a 3-way incandescent lamp. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Y))

Three-way lamps are commonly found in wattage combinations such as 50, 100, and 150 watts or 30, 70, and 100 watts. These lamps use two filaments (e.g., a 30-watt and a 70-watt filament) and can be operated separately or together to produce three different lumen outputs (e.g., 305 lumens with one filament, 995 lumens with the other, or 1,300 lumens using the filaments together). When used in three-way sockets, these lamps allow users to control the light level. Three-way incandescent lamps are typically used in residential multi-purpose areas, where consumers may adjust the light level to be appropriate for the task they are performing.

D. 2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps

The statute does not provide a definition of “2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps;” however, DOE is interpreting this term to be a general service incandescent lamp 2 that emits light between 2,601 and 3,300 lumens. These lamps are used in general service applications when high light output is needed.

2 A “general service incandescent lamp” means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that—(I) is intended for general service applications; (II) has a medium screw base; (III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens or, in the case of a modified spectrum lamp, not less than 232 lumens and not more than 1,950 lumens; and (IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D)(i)).

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “shatter-resistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, or shatter-protected lamp.” “Shatter-resistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, and shatter-protected lamp” mean a lamp that—(i) has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with NSF/ANSI 51 [National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute] and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken; and (ii) is designated and marketed for the intended application, with—(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Z)) Although the definition provides three names commonly used to refer to these lamps, DOE simply refers to them collectively as “shatter-resistant lamps.”

Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a special coating designed to prevent glass shards from being dispersed if a lamp's glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a coating compliant with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,3 “Food Equipment Materials,” and are labeled and marketed as shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected. Some types of the coatings can also protect the lamp from breakage in applications subject to heat and thermal shock that may occur from water, sleet, snow, soldering, or welding.

3 NSF/ANSI 51 applies specifically to materials and coatings used in the manufacturing of equipment and objects destined for contact with foodstuffs.

III. Comparison Methodology

In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed each of the five sets of shipment data that was collected in consultation with NEMA and applied two curve fits to generate unit sales estimates for the five lamp types after calendar year 2006. One curve fit applied a linear regression to the historical data and extended that line into the future. The other curve fit applied an exponential growth function to the shipment data and projected unit sales into the future. For this calculation, linear regression treats the year as a dependent variable and shipments as the independent variable. The linear regression curve fit is modeled by minimizing the differences among the data points and the best curve-fit linear line using the least squares function.4 The exponential curve fit is also a regression function and uses the same least squares function to find the best fit. For some data sets, an exponential curve provides a better characterization of the historical data, and, therefore, a better projection of the future data.

4 The least squares function is an analytical tool that DOE uses to minimize the sum of the squared residual differences between the actual historical data points and the modeled value (i.e., the linear curve fit). In minimizing this value, the resulting curve fit will represent the best fit possible to the data provided.

For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps, DOE found that the linear regression and exponential growth curve fits produced nearly the same estimates of unit sales (i.e., the difference between the two forecasted values was less than 1 or 2 percent). However, for rough service and vibration service lamps, the linear regression curve fit projected lamp unit sales would decline to zero for both lamp types by 2018. In contrast, the exponential growth curve fit projected a more gradual decline in unit sales, such that lamps would still be sold beyond 2018, and it was, therefore, considered the more realistic forecast. While DOE was satisfied that either the linear regression or exponential growth spreadsheet model generated a reasonable benchmark unit sales estimate for 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps, DOE selected the exponential growth curve fit for these lamp types for consistency with the selection made for rough service and vibration service lamps.5 DOE examines the benchmark unit sales estimates and actual sales for each of the five lamp types in the following section and also makes the comparisons available in a spreadsheet online: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=16.

5 This selection is consistent with the previous annual comparisons. See DOE's 2008 forecast spreadsheet models of the lamp types for greater detail on the estimates.

IV. Comparison Results A. Rough Service Lamps

For rough service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 4,967,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 6,731,000 units in 2015. As this finding is only 135.5 percent of the estimate,6 DOE will continue to track rough service lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

6 The percentages reported in this section are calculated by dividing the 2015 actual sales by the 2015 projected sales. Numbers less than one hundred percent indicate the actual sales are less than the projected sales, numbers greater than one hundred percent and less than or equal to two hundred percent indicate the actual sales exceed the projected sales somewhat, and numbers greater than two hundred percent indicate the actual sales are more than double the projected sales and a rulemaking must be initiated.

B. Vibration Service Lamps

For vibration service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 2,594,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported 7,071,000 vibration service lamp shipments in 2015, which is 272.5 percent of the benchmark estimate.

Section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 in part amends paragraph 325(l)(4) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (D) through (H), which direct DOE to take regulatory action if the actual annual unit sales of any of the five lamp types are more than 200 percent of the predicted shipments (i.e., more than double the benchmark unit sales estimate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)-(H)) As the actual unit sales for vibration service lamps are 272.5 percent of the benchmark estimate for the 2015 calendar year, DOE must conduct an accelerated energy conservation standards rulemaking for vibration service lamps to be completed no later than December 31, 2016. If the Secretary does not complete the accelerated rulemaking in the allotted time, the statute provides a backstop requirement that becomes the regulatory standard for vibration service lamps. This backstop requirement would establish standards beginning one year after the date of issuance of this NODA, and would require vibration service lamps to: (1) Have a maximum 40-watt limitation and (2) be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp.

The requirement to collect and model data for vibration service lamps shall terminate unless, as part of the rulemaking, the Secretary determines that continued tracking is necessary. If, however, the Secretary imposes a backstop requirement as a result of a failure to complete the accelerated rulemaking in accordance with the statute, the requirement to collect and model data for the applicable type of lamp shall continue for two years after the compliance date of the backstop requirement. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(I)(i) and (ii))

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps

For 3-way incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 48,603,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 32,665,000 units in 2015. As this finding is only 67.2 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 3-way incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

D. 2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps

For 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 34,175,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 4,049,000 units in 2015. As this finding is 11.8 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps

For shatter-resistant lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2015 to be 1,675,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 689,000 units in 2015. As this finding is only 41.1 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track shatter-resistant lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.

V. Conclusion

The shipments for rough service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps did not cross the statutory threshold for a standard. DOE will continue to monitor these four currently exempted lamp types and will assess 2016 sales by March 31, 2017, in order to determine whether an energy conservation standards rulemaking is required, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D) through (H). The actual unit sales for vibration service lamps are 272.5 of the benchmark unit sales estimate. Therefore, DOE will begin an accelerated energy conservation standard rulemaking for vibration service lamps that must be completed by December 31, 2016.

VI. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

DOE has determined that this proposed action falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this proposed action would find that for vibration service lamps energy conservation standards would be appropriate. However, this proposed action would not establish energy conservation standards at this time, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this action is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 “Procedural rulemakings” under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2016-07873 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1621] Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The FAA announces public meeting on its proposal to revise Part 23 Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes. The purpose of the public meeting is for the FAA to explain and answer questions concerning the language related to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 13452, March 14, 2016).

DATES:

The public meetings will be held on the following dates: (Note that the meetings may be adjourned early if the agenda is completed in less time than is scheduled for the meetings.)

• May 3, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. until no later than 5:00 p.m.

• May 4, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. until no later than 5:00 p.m.

The NPRM written comment period will close on May 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The May 3 and 4, 2016, public meeting will be held at the Georgia International Convention Center, 2000 Convention Center Concourse, College Park, GA 30294.

Written comments (identified by docket number FAA-2015-1621) may be submitted using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending comments electronically.

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

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Hand Delivery: Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Written comments to the docket will receive the same consideration as statements made at the public meeting. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided by the commenter. Using the search function of the FAA's docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of the agency's dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement may be reviewed in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476) or at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time or in Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Lowell Foster, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816) 329-4125, facsimile (816) 329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 14, 2016, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes”. The FAA proposes in this NPRM to amend its airworthiness standards for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes by removing current prescriptive design requirements and replacing them with performance-based airworthiness standards. The proposed standards would also replace the current weight and propulsion divisions in part 23 with performance- and risk-based divisions for airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less. The proposed airworthiness standards are based on, and would maintain, the level of safety of the current part 23. Finally, the FAA proposes to adopt additional airworthiness standards to address certification for flight in icing conditions, enhanced stall characteristics, and minimum control speed to prevent departure from controlled flight for multiengine airplanes. The NPRM addresses the Congressional mandate set forth in the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 20131 (Pub. L. 113-53, 49 U.S.C. 44704 note).

1https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1848/text.

Purpose of the Public Meetings

The purpose of the public meetings is for the FAA to discuss the NPRM, hear the public's questions, address any confusion, and obtain information relevant to the final rule under consideration. The FAA will consider comments made at the public meetings before making a final decision on issuance of the final rule.

Public Meeting Procedures

A panel of representatives from the FAA will be present. An FAA representative will facilitate the meetings in accordance with the following procedures:

(1) There will be no admission fees or other charges to attend or to participate in the public meetings. The meetings will be open to all persons, subject to availability of space in the meeting room. The FAA will make every effort to accommodate all persons wishing to attend. The FAA asks that participants sign in between 7:00-8:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting being attended. The meetings may adjourn early if the agenda items are completed in less time than is scheduled for the meetings.

(2) The meetings will be recorded by a court reporter. A transcript of the meetings and all material accepted by the panel during the meetings will be included in the public docket, unless protected from disclosure. Each person interested in purchasing a copy of a transcript should contact the court reporter directly. Information on how to purchase a transcript will be available at the meetings.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2016. James M. Crotty, Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-07943 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 382 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0246] RIN 2105-AE12 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel; Establishment of a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION:

Notice of intent to establish the Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS) Advisory Committee; Solicitation of applications and nominations for membership.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation (“Department,” “DOT,” or “we”) announces its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking (Reg-Neg) committee to negotiate and develop proposed amendments to the Department's disability regulation on three issues: Whether to require accessible inflight entertainment (IFE) and strengthen accessibility requirements for other in-flight communications; whether to require an accessible lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft over a certain size; and whether to amend the definition of “service animals” that may accompany passengers with a disability on a flight. The committee will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are affected significantly by the subject matter of the proposed regulation.

The Department anticipates that the interested parties may include disability advocacy organizations, airlines, airports, and aircraft manufacturers. The Department seeks comment on the establishment of the Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS) Advisory Committee, the issues to be addressed, and the proposed list of stakeholder types to be represented on the Committee. We also invite nominations or applications for membership on the ACCESS Advisory Committee. To the extent it can do so consistent with the goal of ensuring effective representation and necessary expertise, the Department will select individuals who reflect the diversity among the organizations or groups represented.

DATES:

Comments and nominations for Committee membership must be received on or before April 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments using any one of the following methods:

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

Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: 202 493-2251. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Submitting Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments. In all cases, please identify your comment with docket number DOT-OST-2015-0246.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about the regulatory negotiation, you may contact Livaughn Chapman or Blane A. Workie, Office of the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, by email at [email protected] or [email protected] or by telephone at 202-366-9342. To obtain a copy of this notice of intent in an accessible format, you may also contact Livaughn Chapman.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice of intent (DOT-OST-2015-0246), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, by mail, by hand delivery, or by fax. Please use only one of these methods. DOT recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number with your comments so that DOT can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. All comments and material received in the docket during this comment period will be given consideration and become part of the record in this rulemaking proceeding. We will consider to the extent practicable all comments and material received in the docket after the comment period ends.

Viewing Comments and Documents

You may view comments on this notice of intent, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. After entering the docket number, click the link to “Open Docket Folder” and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Submitting Nominations

All nomination materials should be submitted electronically via email to [email protected] Any person needing accessibility accommodations should contact Livaughn Chapman, Chief, Aviation Civil Rights Compliance Branch, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, at (202) 366-9342.

Privacy Act

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

Background

On December 7, 2015, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register announcing its intent to consider a Reg-Neg on six issues—(1) inflight entertainment accessibility; (2) supplemental medical oxygen; (3) service animals; (4) accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft; (5) seating accommodations; and (6) carrier reporting of disability service requests.1 On January 5, 2016, the Department subsequently announced an extension of the 30-day comment period to January 21, 2016.2 At the close of the comment period, we had received nearly 70 comments. To date, we have received close to 90 comments. The Department also announced that we had hired a neutral convener, Mr. Richard Parker, a professor of law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, to speak with representatives from among the organizational interests mentioned above about the feasibility of conducting a Reg-Neg on these six issues. Mr. Parker conducted interviews with 46 different stakeholders representing these interests and prepared a convening report to DOT on the feasibility of conducting the negotiated rulemaking under consideration. The convening report is available in the rulemaking docket at DOT-OST-2015-0246. Based on the convening report, the comments received on the December notice, and on the statutory factors in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563), DOT decided that it would be in the public interest to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee (5 U.S.C. 564) with a narrower scope. Chief among the statutory factors we considered in our decision was whether a Committee could be assembled that would fairly represent all affected interests, negotiate in good faith, and offer a reasonable likelihood of reaching a consensus on the issues. We determined that the following three issues were the most suitable for the Reg-Neg: (1) Whether to require accessible inflight entertainment (IFE) and strengthen accessibility requirements for other in-flight communications; (2) whether to require an accessible lavatory on single-aisle new aircraft over a certain size; and (3) whether to amend the definition of “service animals” that may accompany passengers with a disability on a flight. The Department intends to address the remaining issues (supplemental medical oxygen, seating accommodations, and carrier reporting of disability service requests) through other actions.

1 80 FR 75953 (December 7, 2015).

2 81 FR 193 (January 5, 2016).

In selecting these three issues for the Reg-Neg, the Department considered the impact of the issues on all the affected stakeholders and the likelihood of the Committee reaching agreement on recommendations to the Department. Concerns expressed across interest groups about service animals on aircraft suggested that stakeholders would be motivated to come to agreement on their recommendations. While the differences among stakeholders on IFE accessibility were greater, there were other indications that consensus recommendations may be achievable and that Committee deliberations might furnish highly relevant and useful information and insight to guide Departmental rulemaking deliberations in any event. For example, new technologies and methods for providing IFE have created more accessible onboard entertainment and communications options at lower cost than ever before. Although lavatory accessibility on single aisle aircraft is perhaps the longest standing and the most controversial of the issues considered for the Reg-Neg, we believe that there are significant advantages to including it. The Reg-Neg process will serve to educate all the parties about the state of the art in lavatory accessibility and allow stakeholders to identify regulatory options and share information on their costs and benefits. We believe these stakeholder discussions will enhance the possibility of reaching agreement on proposals to recommend to the Department, and in furnishing useful information to guide the Department's rulemaking if consensus is not reached. For the above reasons, we believe that the scope of the rulemaking should focus on these issues.

The Department acknowledges the views and concerns of all the participants in the convening process and is committed to addressing the issues of supplemental medical oxygen, seating accommodations, and carrier reporting of disability service requests as appropriate in subsequent rulemaking or other actions.

The Secretary of Transportation has approved a charter to govern the activities of the ACCESS Advisory Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. In accordance with section 14 of FACA, the charter provides for the ACCESS Advisory Committee to remain in existence for two years after the filing date unless sooner terminated or renewed. However, the Department intends to complete the Reg-Neg for the proposed rule in 2016 and to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2017.

This notice of intent requests nominations for members of the Committee to ensure a wide range of member candidates and a balanced committee. The Secretary of Transportation will appoint approximately 25 Committee members, including a representative of DOT, who will each serve until the stated objectives of the Committee have been accomplished (i.e., the Committee submits its recommendation to the Secretary). The Committee is expected to meet every month from May to October 2016. Members should be senior level officials who can commit their organizations and who either are experts on accessibility with respect to the topics of interest to their organizations or who have access to such experts.

The Department will choose the Committee members based on four main criteria: (1) Representativeness (does the applicant represent a significant stakeholder group that will be substantially affected by the final rule); (2) expertise (does the applicant bring essential knowledge, expertise and/or experience regarding accessibility and the topic area(s) of interest that will enrich the discussion of the available options and their respective costs and benefits); (3) balance (does the slate of selected applicants comprise a balanced array of representative and expert stakeholders); and (4) willingness to participate fully (is the applicant able and willing to attend the listed meetings and associated working group conference calls, bring in other experts from the applicant's organization as needed and relevant, bargain in good faith, and generally contribute constructively to a rigorous policy development process).

Subject to change based on information received in response to this notice of intent, DOT proposes for public comment the following list of stakeholder categories to be members of the Committee:

• U.S. Department of Transportation • Airlines (1 representative each from 2 large U.S. airlines, 2 large foreign airlines, 1 regional U.S. air carrier, 1 low-cost US air carrier, and 1 charter carrier to be determined) • Cross-disability advocacy groups (2 representatives to be determined) • Consumer groups (1 representative to be determined) • Professional associations of flight attendants (1 representative to be determined) • Advocacy groups for blind and visually impaired individuals (2 representatives to be determined) • Advocacy Groups representing service animal users (1 representative to be determined) • Advocacy Groups representing people with psychiatric disabilities (1 representative to be determined) • Providers, manufactures, or experts of IFE products, systems, and services (2 representatives to be determined) • Advocacy groups representing deaf and hard of hearing individuals (2 representatives to be determined) • Academic or non-profit institutions having technical expertise in accessibility research and development (2 representatives to be determined) • Aircraft manufacturers (2 representatives to be determined) • Advocacy groups representing individuals with mobility disabilities (2 representatives to be determined)

We believe that the aforementioned stakeholder categories represent the interests significantly affected by this rulemaking. Organizations from each stakeholder category may nominate a candidate for Committee membership from their own organization, or jointly nominate a candidate to represent their collective interests. The list is not presented as a complete or exclusive list of stakeholder categories from which Committee members will be selected. The list merely indicates the stakeholder categories that DOT tentatively has identified as representing significantly affected interests in the proposed rule to enhance requirements for accessibility in air transportation. All individuals or organizations who wish to be selected to serve on the Committee should submit an application, regardless of whether their stakeholder category appears on the above list. If anyone believes their interests would not be adequately represented by one or more of these categories, they should document that assertion in their comment and/or their application for membership on the Committee. DOT requests comments and suggestions regarding its tentative list of significantly affected stakeholder categories from which potential members of the Committee may be selected.

Individuals applying for membership should keep in mind that Committee members will be selected to represent not only the interest of that individual's own organization but rather the collective stakeholder interests of organizations in the same stakeholder category. For example, an individual from a large U.S. airline selected to serve on the Committee would represent not only its airline but all large U.S. airlines. As such, the individual would be expected to consult with other large airlines in bringing issues to the table and making decisions on proposals before the Committee.

Working groups may be formed to address the specific ACCESS Advisory Committee issues. These working groups will include Committee members but may also include experts or representatives who are not Committee members. Such working groups will report back to the ACCESS Advisory Committee. The experience of past Reg-Negs has been that working groups play a vital role in the policy development process and deliberations. They provide both Committee Members and non-Members an important opportunity for meaningful participation and interaction in identifying and weighing options and alternatives. The Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings will provide appropriate funding, logistics, administrative, and technical support for the Committee and its working groups. DOT subject matter experts, attorneys, and economists will also provide support to the Committee and work groups. A Web site for Committee members, working group members, and the public to access online general information, meeting announcements, agendas, and minutes, as well as Committee and working group work products will be established at https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/accesscommittee.

At this time, we anticipate that the ACCESS Advisory Committee will have six two-day meetings in Washington DC. We propose to hold the meetings on the following dates: First meeting, May 17-18; second meeting, June 14-15; third meeting, July 11-12; fourth meeting, August 16-17; fifth meeting, September 22-23, and the sixth and final meeting, October 13-14. Individuals interested in serving on the Committee should plan to attend each of these meetings in person. When appropriate, designees will be permitted.

Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Organizations and/or persons who believe they meet the criteria listed above are invited to apply for membership on the ACCESS Advisory Committee to represent the stakeholder interests of their organizational category with respect to the proposed issues. Organizational applicants should indicate both the stakeholder category they propose to represent and the individual from their organization applying to serve on the Committee; describe the responsibilities and qualifications of that person; and describe the qualifications of any alternates or professional colleagues who will be assisting the principal representative in the process.

Qualified individuals can self-nominate or be nominated by any stakeholder or stakeholder organization. To be considered for the ACCESS Advisory Committee, nominators should submit the following information:

(1) Name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone and email address) and a description of the issues addressed in this rulemaking that such individual is qualified to address, and the interests such a person shall represent;

(2) A letter of support from a company, union, trade association, or non-profit organization on letterhead containing a brief description why the nominee is qualified and should be considered for membership to the extent the nominee proposes to represent parties with interest in this proceeding;

(3) A written commitment that the applicant or nominee shall actively participate in good faith in the development of the rule under consideration;

(4) Short biography of nominee including professional and academic credentials;

(5) An affirmative statement that the nominee meets all Committee eligibility requirements; and

(6) If applicable, the reason(s) that the parties identified in this notice of intent as affected interests and stakeholders do not adequately represent the interest of the person submitting the application or nomination.

All individuals representing a stakeholder interest who wish to serve on the Reg-Neg Committee should apply for membership by supplying the information listed above. Please do not send company, trade association, or organization brochures or any other information. Materials submitted should total two single-spaced pages or less. Should more information be needed, DOT staff will contact the nominee, obtain information from the nominee's past affiliations, or obtain information from publicly available sources, such as the Internet. Nominations may be emailed to [email protected] Nominations must be received by April 21, 2016.

Nominees selected for appointment to the Committee will be notified of appointment by email. Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that recommendations to the Secretary take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by DOT, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent persons with disabilities, minorities, and women. The Department will file any comments it receives on this notice of intent in docket DOT-OST-2015-0246. Notice to the public will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 days prior to each plenary meeting of the ACCESS Advisory Committee and members of the public will be invited to attend.

Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.27.

Dated: April 4, 2016. Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-08062 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter III [Docket ID ED-2016-OSERS-0005; CFDA Number: 84.160C.] Proposed Priority—Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program AGENCY:

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Proposed priority.

SUMMARY:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year 2016 and later years. We take this action to provide training and technical assistance to better prepare novice interpreters to become highly qualified nationally certified sign language interpreters.

DATES:

We must receive your comments on or before May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under the “help” tab.

Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5062, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-5076.

Privacy Note:

The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez. Telephone: (202) 245-6103 or by email: [email protected]

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section of the proposed priority that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

Specific Issues Open for Comment:

In addition to your general comments and recommended clarifications, we seek input on the proposed design of the Experiential Learning Model Demonstration Center for Novice Interpreters and Baccalaureate Degree ASL-English Interpretation Programs (Center) and expectations for implementation. We are particularly interested in your feedback on the following questions:

• Are the proposed required project activities appropriate? Are there any additional project activities beyond those included in the proposed priority that should be considered? For example, are there any specific activities that may be strongly associated with long-term success for ASL-English interpreters that we have not included? If so, please specify what additional activities should be required and why.

• Under the Training Activities section of the proposed priority, we proposed a team of individuals to work with novice interpreters. Are the proposed roles for interpreter advisors and trained mentors clear and appropriate? Should the roles and responsibilities of the interpreter advisor and mentor be changed or combined? In your experience, how might qualified interpreters work with novice interpreters differently than trained mentors? Should these roles be more or less prescriptive than what we have outlined in the proposed priority?

• In the proposed priority, the Center is expected to plan and design the curriculum, develop training modules, and implement a pilot experiential learning program within the first two years of the grant period. Is this timeline reasonable? If not, what timeline should be required for these expected project deliverables?

• In addition to national certification, such as, for example, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) National Interpreter Certification (NIC) tests, what measures for assessing the improvement in a novice interpreter's skills should be required?

• How many cohorts should be required to complete the experiential learning program within the five-year project period? Should the Department require a certain number of novice interpreters per cohort, and, if so, how many?

• Beyond requiring a logic model and a project evaluation, are there any unique or additional strategies to ensure that the program evaluation framework is infused throughout the planning, designing, and implementation of the experiential learning curriculum that the Department should include? If so, please specify.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed priority by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in room 5062, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC 20202-5076, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program: Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) makes grants to public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, to establish interpreter training programs or to provide financial assistance for ongoing interpreter training programs to train a sufficient number of qualified interpreters throughout the country. The grants are designed to train interpreters to effectively interpret and transliterate using spoken, visual, and tactile modes of communication; ensure the maintenance of the interpreting skills of qualified interpreters; and provide opportunities for interpreters to improve their skills in order to meet both the highest standards approved by certifying associations and the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(a) and (f).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 396.

Proposed Priority:

This notice contains one proposed priority.

Experiential Learning Model Demonstration Center for Novice Interpreters and Baccalaureate Degree ASL-English Interpretation Programs.

Background:

Over the last 20 years, the fields of interpreting and interpreter training have changed significantly in response to the evolving needs of deaf 1 children and adults in the United States, which include deaf consumers of the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) system. The need for interpreting services continues to exceed the available supply of qualified interpreters.

1 As used in this notice, the word “deaf” refers to (1) `deaf' and `Deaf' people, i.e. to the condition of deafness; (2) to `deaf, hard of hearing, and Deaf-Blind'; and (3) to individuals who are culturally Deaf and who use American Sign Language (ASL). “Deaf” refers only to the third group.

Interpreters must be qualified to work with both individuals with a range of linguistic competencies from a variety of cultural backgrounds and individuals with disabilities. For example, the first language of many deaf individuals is either spoken English or a foreign spoken language, and their second language is ASL. This is, in part, a result of advances in medical treatments, such as an increase in the early detection and intervention of hearing loss in newborns and an increase in the use of cochlear implants. In addition, deaf individuals who have co-occurring disabilities (including co-occurring disabilities that affect speech and language skills, upper extremity motor coordination, and cognition) likely require specialized supports to experience linguistic and communication access to the general environment. Further still, there are an increasing number of deaf individuals from minority and immigrant communities who have unique characteristics related to culture, language, family structure, income and socioeconomic background, and refugee experience, as well as complex and diverse communication needs (Cogen and Cokely). These shifts in how deaf individuals acquire and use language make the task of interpreting more difficult.

In addition, expanding requirements in video relay interpreting and video remote interpreting, the establishment of new “national” standards and credentials for interpreters to work in specific settings (e.g., interpreting in mental health and legal settings), and the development of State-specific licensure, certification, registration, or other requirements (e.g., background and criminal checks to work in certain facilities) all have put a strain on the availability of qualified interpreters.

Finally, interpreters need additional education, training, and experience in order to meet certification standards. For example, in July 2012, a precondition was added for candidates sitting for RID National Interpreter Certification Test requiring them to have, at a minimum, a baccalaureate degree in any field or major, or a demonstrated educational equivalency, before being permitted to take the examination.

In 2014, RID awarded 280 new credentials, and of those, 186 represented the NIC. RID reported an 87 percent pass rate for the knowledge exam but only a 26 percent pass rate for the performance exam. This problem is exacerbated by the length of time between graduating from an ASL-English Interpretation program and achieving national certification. On average, the length of time is 19-24 months (Cogen and Cokely, 2015). This could be longer if a candidate does not initially pass the NIC exam, due to a mandatory six-month waiting period before a candidate is eligible to retest.

Many graduates find work within six months to one year of graduation, but in most cases, these interpreting assignments are too complex and are therefore inappropriate for their skill levels. These situations provide little or no opportunities for support and professional growth. Additional education, training, and experience are needed for novice interpreters to bridge this graduation-to-credential gap and to gain sufficient skills to interpret effectively.

In sum, the pool of qualified interpreters is insufficient to meet the needs of deaf consumers in the United States. To address this problem, the Assistant Secretary proposes a priority to establish a model demonstration center to better prepare novice interpreters to become nationally certified sign language interpreters.

Interpreters must also be able to understand and communicate proficiently using technical vocabulary and highly specialized discourse in a variety of complex subject matters in both English and ASL. Training, even for experienced interpreters, in specialized settings is needed, and for this reason, we are publishing a notice of proposed priority focusing on interpreter training in specialized areas elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

References:

Cogen, Cathy, M.Ed., and Cokely, Dennis, Ph.D., “Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow: Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education” (National Interpreter Education Center at Northeastern University, January 2015). Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf “Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report” available at www.rid.org/2014-annual-report/#certification

Proposed Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a model demonstration center (Center) to: (1) Develop an experiential learning program that could be implemented through baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs or through partner organizations, such as community-based organizations, advocacy organizations, or commissions for the Deaf or deaf-blind that work with baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs to provide work experiences and mentoring; (2) pilot the experiential learning program in three baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs or partner organizations and evaluate the results; and (3) disseminate practices that are promising or supported by evidence, examples, and lessons learned.

The Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following outcomes:

(a) Increase the number of certified interpreters.

(b) Reduce the average length of time it takes for novice interpreters to become nationally certified after graduating from baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs; and

(c) Increase the average number of hours that novice interpreters, through the experiential learning program, interact with and learn from the local deaf community.

Project Activities

To meet the requirements of this priority, the Center must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities:

Establish a consortium

(a) The applicant must establish a consortium of training and technical assistance (TA) providers or use an existing network of providers to design and implement a model experiential learning program. An eligible consortium must be comprised of a designated lead entity that operates a baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation program that is recognized and accredited by CCIE; and

(b) Members of the consortium must be staffed by or have access to experienced and certified interpreters, interpreter educators, and trained mentors with capability in providing feedback and guidance to novice interpreters, and in serving as language models; and who are geographically dispersed across the country, including the territories, or are able to provide training, TA, and mentoring remotely to broad sections of the country.

Training Activities

(a) In years one and two, design and implement an experiential learning program that is based upon promising and best practices or modules in the preparation of novice interpreters to become certified interpreters. The program design must, at a minimum:

(1) Ensure that all activities are offered at no-cost to participants during the program.

(2) Include a team comprised of native language users, qualified interpreters, and trained mentors to partner with novice interpreters during and after successful completion of the experiential learning program. Roles for team members must include but are not limited to:

(i) Native language users who will serve as language models;

(ii) Qualified interpreters who will act in an advisory role by observing, providing feedback, and discussing the novice interpreter's ability to accurately interpret spoken English into ASL and ASL into spoken English in a variety of situations for a range of consumers; and

(iii) Provide mentoring to novice interpreters, as needed. This may include one-on-one instruction to address specific areas identified by the advisor as needing further practice, as well as offering tools, resources, and guidance to novice interpreters to prepare them for potential challenges they may encounter as they grow and advance in the profession. One-on-one instruction may address, but is not limited to, meaning transfer (e.g., accurately providing an equivalent message and/or appropriately handling register), ethical behavior, meeting the consumer's linguistic preference, managing the flow of information (e.g., pace, density, turn-taking), and other related aspects of the interpreting task.

(3) Provide multiple learning opportunities, such as an internship with a community program, mentoring, and intensive site-specific work. Intensive site-specific work may task a novice interpreter, under close direction from the advisor interpreter, with providing interpreting services to deaf individuals employed at a work site, or to deaf students taking courses at college or enrolled in an apprenticeship program. Other learning modalities may be proposed and must include adequate justification.

(4) Emphasize innovative instructional delivery methods, such as distance learning or block scheduling (i.e., a type of academic scheduling that offers students fewer classes per day for longer periods of time) that would allow novice interpreters to more easily participate in the program (i.e., participants who need to work while in the program, have child care or elder care considerations, or live in geographically isolated areas);

(5) Provide experiential learning that engages novice interpreters with different learning styles;

(6) Provide interpreting experiences with a variety of deaf consumers who have different linguistic and communication needs and preferences, and are located in different settings, including VR settings (e.g., VR counseling, assessments, job-related services, training, pre-employment transition services, transition services, post-employment services, etc.), American Job Centers, and other relevant workforce partner locations;

(7) Require novice interpreters to observe, discuss, and reflect on the work of the advisor interpreter;

(8) Require novice interpreters to interpret in increasingly more complex and demanding situations. The advisor interpreter must provide written and oral feedback that includes strengths and areas of improvement, as well as a discussion with the novice interpreter about interpretation options, ethical behavior, and how best to meet the communication needs of a particular consumer; and

(b) Pilot the experiential learning program in a single site by year two and expand to additional sites beginning in year three. Applicants must:

(1) Identify at least three existing baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs to serve as the pilot sites. The baccalaureate programs must use a curriculum design that is based upon current best practices in the ASL-English Interpreter Education profession;

(2) Identify cohorts for each pilot site and provide a plan to ensure that at least one cohort is completed in each pilot site prior to the end of the project period. The cohorts must comprise graduates from baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs who are preparing for, or have not passed, the NIC knowledge and performance exams and who intend to work as interpreters. Applicants may determine the number of cohorts for each pilot site as well as the number of participants in each cohort;

(3) Establish additional criteria for selection in the program. This may include, but is not limited to, submission of an application, relevant assessments, interviews with prospective participants, and recommendations from faculty at baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs;

(c) Conduct a formative and summative evaluation. At a minimum, this must include:

(1) An assessment of participant outcomes from each cohort that includes, at a minimum, level of knowledge and practical skill levels using pre- and post-assessments; feedback from novice interpreters, from interpreter advisors, including written feedback from observed interpreting situations, from deaf consumers, from trained mentors, including written feedback from mentoring sessions, and from others, as appropriate;

(2) Clear and specific measureable outcomes that include, but are not limited to:

(i) Improvement in specific linguistic competencies, as identified by the applicant, in English and ASL;

(ii) Improvement in specific competencies, as identified by the applicant, in ASL-English interpretation;

(iii) Outcomes in achieving national certification; and

(iv) The length of time for novice interpreters to become nationally certified sign language interpreters after participating in this project compared to the national average of 19-24 months.

Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities

Conduct TA and dissemination activities that must include:

(a) Preparing and broadly disseminating TA materials related to practices that are promising or supported by evidence and successful strategies for working with novice interpreters;

(b) Establishing and maintaining a state-of-the-art information technology (IT) platform sufficient to support Webinars, teleconferences, video conferences, and other virtual methods of dissemination of information and TA.

Note:

All products produced by the Center must meet government- and industry-recognized standards for accessibility, including section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

(c) Developing and maintaining a state-of-the-art archiving and dissemination system that—

(1) Provides a central location for later use of TA products, including curricula, audiovisual materials, Webinars, examples of practices that are promising or supported by evidence, and any other relevant TA products; and

(2) Is open and available to the public.

(d) Provides a minimum of two Webinars or video conferences over the course of the project to describe and disseminate information to the field about results, challenges, solutions, and practices that are promising or supported by evidence.

Note:

In meeting the requirements for paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the Center either may develop new platforms or systems or may modify existing platforms or systems, so long as the requirements of this priority are met.

Coordination Activities

(a) Establish an advisory committee. To effectively implement the Training Activities section of this priority, the applicant must establish an advisory committee that meets at least semi-annually. The advisory committee must include representation from all affected stakeholder groups (i.e., interpreters, interpreter training programs, deaf individuals, and VR agencies) and may include other relevant groups. The advisory committee will advise on the strategies for establishing sites to pilot the experiential learning program, the approaches to the experiential learning program, modifications to experiential learning activities, TA, sustainability planning, evaluating the effectiveness of the program, as well as other relevant areas as determined by the consortium.

(b) Establish one or more communities of practice 2 that focus on project activities in this priority and that act as vehicles for communication and exchange of information among participants in the experiential learning program, as well as other relevant stakeholders;

2 A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who work together to solve a persistent problem or to improve practice in an area that is important to them and who deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis. CoPs exist in many forms, some large in scale that deal with complex problems, others small in scale that focus on a problem at a very specific level. For more information on communities of practice, see: www.tadnet.org/pages/510.

(c) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other relevant Department-funded projects, as applicable; and

(d) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and other RSA staff as required.

Application Requirements

To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the application requirements in this priority. RSA encourages innovative approaches to meet the following requirements:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will address the need for nationally certified sign language interpreters. To meet this requirement, the applicant must:

(1) Demonstrate knowledge of English/ASL competencies that novice interpreters must possess in order to enter and to complete an experiential learning program and, at the end of the program, to successfully obtain national certification;

(2) Demonstrate knowledge of practices that are promising or supported by evidence in training novice interpreters; and

(3) Demonstrate knowledge of practices that are promising or supported by evidence in providing experiential learning.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability in accessing postsecondary education and training.

(2) Identify the needs of intended recipients of training; and

(3) Ensure that project activities and products meet the needs of the intended recipients by creating materials in formats and languages that are accessible;

(4) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must identify and provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;

(ii) Evidence of an existing Memorandum of Understanding or a Letter of Intent between the Center and proposed training and TA providers to establish a consortium that includes a description of each proposed partner's anticipated commitment of financial or in-kind resources (if any), how each proposed provider's current and proposed activities align with those of the proposed project, how each proposed provider will be held accountable under the proposed structure, and evidence to demonstrate a working relationship between the applicant and its proposed partners and key stakeholders and other relevant groups; and

(iii) A plan for communicating, collaborating, and coordinating with an advisory committee; key staff in State VR agencies, such as State Coordinators for the Deaf; State and local partner programs; Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.; RSA partners, such as the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind; and relevant programs within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

(3) Use a conceptual framework to design experiential learning activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables and any empirical support for this framework.

(4) Be based on current research and make use of practices that are promising or supported by evidence. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the current research about adult learning principles and implementation science will inform the proposed TA; and

(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices that are promising or supported by evidence in the development and delivery of its products and services.

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed activities to identify or develop the knowledge base for practices that are promising or supported by evidence in experiential learning for novice interpreters;

(6) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(1) Evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses that will be used to evaluate the project;

(2) Measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project's activities and products have reached their target populations; intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals and objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model,3 have been met;

3 A logic model communicates how the project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project.

(3) How the evaluation plan will be implemented and revised, as needed, during the project. The applicant must designate at least one individual with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to support the design and implementation of the evaluation. Tasks may include, but are not limited to, coordinating with the advisory committee and RSA to revise the logic model to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes, to reflect any changes or clarifications to the logic model discussed at the kick-off meeting, and to revise the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the grant application consistent with the logic model (e.g., developing quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both the collection of progress data and the assessment of project outcomes);

(4) The standards and targets for determining effectiveness;

(5) How evaluation results will be used to examine the effectiveness of implementation and progress toward achieving the intended outcomes; and

(6) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project activities achieved their intended outcomes.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to provide experiential learning to novice interpreters and to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits;

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that such personnel will have adequate availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including the advisory committee, as well as other relevant groups in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(2) Include, in Appendix A, a Memorandum of Understanding or a Letter of Intent between the Center and the proposed training and TA providers;

(3) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;

(4) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(5) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award;

(ii) An annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the RSA project officer and other relevant RSA staff during each subsequent year of the project period; and

(iii) A one-day intensive review meeting in Washington, DC, during the third quarter of the third year of the project period.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final priority: We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note:

This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

These proposed priorities contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under the National Interpreter Education program 1820-0018; this proposed regulation does not affect the currently approved data collection.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement 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 stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that would maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Through this priority, experiential learning and TA will be provided to novice interpreters in order for them to achieve national certification. These activities will help interpreters to more effectively meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are Deaf-Blind. The training ultimately will improve the quality of VR services and the competitive integrated employment outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities. This priority would promote the efficient and effective use of Federal funds.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Dated: April 1, 2016. Michael K. Yudin, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-07933 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 258 [FRL-9944-66-Region 9] Tentative Determination To Approve Site Specific Flexibility for Closure and Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, is making a tentative determination to approve two Site Specific Flexibility Requests (SSFRs) from Imperial County (County or Imperial County) to close and monitor the Picacho Solid Waste Landfill (Picacho Landfill or Landfill). The Picacho Landfill is a commercial municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) operated by Imperial County from 1977 to the present on the Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in California.

Imperial County is seeking approval from EPA to use an alternative final cover and to modify the prescribed list of detection-monitoring parameters for ongoing monitoring. The Quechan Indian Tribe (Tribe) reviewed the proposed SSFRs and determined that they met tribal requirements. EPA is now seeking public comment on EPA's tentative determination to approve the SSFRs.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016. If sufficient public interest is expressed by April 22, 2016, EPA will hold a public hearing at the Quechan Community Center, located at 604 Picacho Rd., in Winterhaven, CA on May 9, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If by April 22, 2016 EPA does not receive information indicating sufficient public interest for a public hearing, EPA may cancel the public hearing with no further notice. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact Steve Wall at (415) 972-3381 to verify that a hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2015-0445, by one of the following methods:

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

Email: [email protected]

Fax: (415) 947-3564.

Mail: Steve Wall, Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, Mail code: LND 2-3, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Instructions: EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any email, Web site submittal, disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. See below for instructions regarding submitting CBI.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet.

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Tips for Submitting Comments to EPA 1. Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2015-0445 and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and provide suggestions for substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be verified.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

2. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)

• Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email.

• Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

• In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.

3. Additional Background Information

All documents in the administrative record docket for this determination are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Library, located at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. The EPA Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, excluding legal holidays, and is located in a secured building. To review docket materials at the EPA Library, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (415) 947-4406 during normal business hours. Copying arrangements will be made through the EPA Library and billed directly to the recipient. Copying costs may be waived depending on the total number of pages copied.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Wall, Land Division, LND 2-3 Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; telephone number: (415) 972-3381; fax number: (415) 947-3564; e-mail address: wall.steve[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Authority for This Proposal

Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Congress required EPA to establish revised minimum federal criteria for MSWLFs, including landfill location restrictions, operating standards, design standards, and requirements for ground water monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care, and financial assurance. Under RCRA section 4005, states are to develop permit programs for facilities that may receive household hazardous waste or waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators of hazardous waste, and EPA is to determine whether the state's program is adequate to ensure that facilities will comply with the revised federal criteria.

The MSWLF criteria are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 258. These regulations are prescriptive, self-implementing and apply directly to owners and operators of MSWLFs. Many of these criteria include a flexible performance standard as an alternative to the prescriptive, self-implementing regulation. The flexible standard is not self-implementing, and requires approval by the Director of an EPA-approved state MSWLF permitting program. However, EPA's approval of a state program generally does not extend to Indian Country because states generally do not have authority over Indian Country. For this reason, owners and operators of MSWLF units located in Indian Country cannot take advantage of the flexibilities available to those facilities that are within the jurisdiction of an EPA-approved state program. However, the EPA has the authority under sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules to enable such owners and operators to use the flexible standards. See Yankton Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471 (D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1996). EPA refers to such rules as “Site Specific Flexibility Determinations” and has developed draft guidance for owners and operators on preparing a request for such a site-specific rule, entitled “Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country Draft Guidance,” EPA530-R-97-016, August 1997) (Draft Guidance).

II. Background

The Picacho Landfill is located on Quechan tribal lands on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation approximately four miles north-northeast of the community of Winterhaven, in Imperial County, California. The Picacho Landfill is a commercial MSWLF operated by Imperial County from 1977 to the present. The landfill site is approximately 12.5 acres.

In January 2006, the Tribe requested that EPA provide comments on the County's closure plan. Between 2006 and 2011, EPA worked with the Tribe, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the County to develop and reach agreement on the closure plan and SSFRs. During this time, EPA also reviewed the SSFRs to determine whether they met technical and regulatory requirements. On October 27, 2010, Imperial County submitted its Picacho Final Closure/Post‐Closure Maintenance Plan. EPA provided a final round of comments on February 10, 2011, which Imperial County incorporated as an addendum. On April 30, 2012, the Tribe approved the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure Maintenance Plan as amended, and, pursuant to EPA's Draft Guidance, the Tribe forwarded to EPA two SSFRs that had been submitted by Imperial County to close and monitor the Picacho Landfill. The requests seek EPA approval to use an alternative final cover meeting the performance requirements of 40 CFR 258.60(a), and to modify the prescribed list of detection-monitoring parameters provided in 40 CFR 258.54(a)(1) and (2) for ongoing monitoring.

III. Basis for Proposal

EPA is basing its tentative determination to approve the site-specific flexibility request on the Tribe's approval, dated April 30, 2012, EPA's independent review of the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure Maintenance Plan as amended, and the associated SSFRs.

A. Alternative Final Cover SSFR: Alternative Final Cover System

The regulations require the installation of a final cover system specified in 40 CFR 258.60(a), which consists of an infiltration layer with a minimum of 18 inches of compacted clay with a permeability of 1 × 10 5 cm/sec, covered by an erosion layer with a minimum six inches of topsoil. Imperial County seeks approval for an alternative final cover designed to satisfy the performance criteria specified in 40 CFR 258.60(b); Imperial County proposes to replace this with an alternative cover which would consist of two and a half feet of native soil to control infiltration covered by six inches of a soil gravel mixture to control erosion.

EPA is basing its tentative determination on a number of factors, including: (1) Research showing that prescriptive, self-implementing requirements for final covers, comprised of low permeability compacted clay, do not perform well in the arid west. The clay dries out and cracks, which allows increased infiltration along the cracks; (2) Research showing that in arid environments thick soil covers comprised of native soil can perform as well or better than the prescriptive cover; and (3) Imperial County's analysis demonstrates, based on site-specific climatic conditions and soil properties, that the proposed alternative soil final cover will achieve equivalent reduction in infiltration as the prescriptive cover design and that the proposed erosion layer provides equivalent protection from wind and water erosion. This analysis is provided in Appendix D and Appendix D-1 of the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure Maintenance Plan dated October 27, 2010 and amended on February 20, 2011.

B. Groundwater Monitoring SSFR: Alternative Detection Monitoring Parameters

The regulations require post-closure monitoring of 15 heavy metals, listed in 40 CFR part 258, Appendix I. Imperial County, proposes to replace these, with the exception of arsenic, with the alternative inorganic indicator parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, sulfate, and total dissolved solids.

EPA's tentative determination is based on the fact that the County has performed over 15 years of semi-annual groundwater monitoring at the site, and during that time arsenic was the only heavy metal detected at a value that slightly exceeded the federal maximum contaminant level (MCL), a standard used for drinking water.

IV. Additional Findings

In order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq., Imperial County Department of Public Works will coordinate with the Tribe to arrange for a qualified Native American monitor to be present during any work. If buried or previously unidentified resources are located during project activities, all work within the vicinity of the find will cease, and the provisions pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13(b) will be implemented. If, during the course of the Landfill closure activities, previously undocumented archaeological material or human remains are encountered, all work shall cease in the immediate area and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find and recommend further management actions.

Though no known threatened or endangered species or their habitat exist on the site, in order to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq., a preconstruction survey will be conducted prior to cover installation to ensure no threatened or endangered species are present. In particular, the survey will look for the presence of desert tortoises, which may occur in Imperial County. Should desert tortoises or other threatened or endangered species be encountered in the survey, or at any time during the closure of the Picacho Landfill, the County shall contact the USFWS to develop avoidance measures to ensure that impacts to the species are minimized. Following closure and vegetation restoration activities, the project site may become suitable for threatened and endangered species. This would be a beneficial effect.

Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only.

Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA.

Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is EPA's conservative analysis of the potential risks posed by SRPMIC's proposal and the controls and standards set forth in the application.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

As required by section three of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), calls for EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” See also “EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations,” (November 8, 1984) and “EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes,” (May 4, 2011). EPA consulted with the Tribe throughout Imperial County's development of its closure and monitoring plans for the Picacho Landfill.

EPA specifically solicits any additional comment on this tentative determination from tribal officials of the Quechan Indian Tribe.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Final cover, Post-closure care groundwater Monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

Dated: March 28, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 1. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) and 6949a(c), 6981(a).

Subpart F—Closure and Post-Closure Care 2. Section 258.62 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility requests in Indian Country.

(b) Picacho Municipal Solid Waste Landfill—Alternative list of detection monitoring parameters and alternative final cover. This paragraph (b) applies to the Picacho Landfill, a Municipal Solid Waste landfill operated by Imperial County on the Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in California.

(1) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.54(a), the owner and operator may modify the list of heavy metal detection monitoring parameters specified in 40 CFR 258, Appendix I, as required during Post-Closure Care by 40 CFR 258.61(a)(3), by replacing monitoring of the inorganic constituents with the exception of arsenic, with the inorganic indicator parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, sulfate, and total dissolved solids.

(2) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.60(b), the owner and operator may replace the prescriptive final cover set forth in 40 CFR 258.60(a), with an alternative final cover as follows:

(i) The owner and operator may install an evapotranspiration cover system as an alternative final cover for the 12.5 acre site.

(ii) The alternative final cover system shall be constructed to achieve an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration layer specified in § 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and provide an equivalent protection from wind and water erosion as the erosion layer specified in § 258.60(a)(3).

(iii) The final cover system shall consist of a minimum three-feet-thick multi-layer cover system comprised, from bottom to top, of:

(A) A minimum 30-inch thick infiltration layer consisting of:

(1) Existing intermediate cover; and

(2) additional cover soil which, prior to placement, shall be wetted to optimal moisture as determined by ASTM D 1557 and thoroughly mixed to near uniform condition, and the material shall then be placed in lifts with an uncompacted thickness of six to eight inches, spread evenly and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASMT D 1557, and shall:

(i) Exhibit a grain size distribution that excludes particles in excess of three inches in diameter;

(ii) have a minimum fines content (percent by weight passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve) of seven percent for an individual test and eight percent for the average of ten consecutive tests;

(iii) have a grain size distribution with a minimum of five percent finer than five microns for an individual test and six percent for the average of ten consecutive tests; and

(iv) exhibit a maximum saturated hydraulic conductivity on the order of 1.0E-03 cm/sec.; and

(3) a minimum six-inch surface erosion layer comprised of a rock/soil admixture. The surface erosion layer admixture and gradations for 3% slopes and 3:1 slopes are detailed below:

(i) 3% slopes: For the 3% slopes the surface admixture shall be composed of pea gravel (3/8-inch to 1/2-inch diameter) mixed with cover soil at the ratio of 25% rock to soil by volume with a minimum six-inch erosion layer.

(ii) For the 3:1 side slopes the surface admixture shall be composed of either: gravel/rock (3/4-inch to one-inch diameter) mixed with additional cover soil as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and result in a minimum six-inch erosion layer, or gravel/rock (3/4-inch to two-inch diameter) mixed with additional cover soil as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and result in a minimum 12-inch erosion layer.

(iii) The owner and operator shall place documentation demonstrating compliance with the provisions of this Section in the operating record.

(iv) All other applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 258 remain in effect.

[FR Doc. 2016-07996 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0002; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0151, 0152, 0153, 0154, 0155, 0156, 0157 and 0158; FRL-9944-35-OLEM] National Priorities List AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rulemaking proposes to add eight sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. This proposed rule also withdraws a previous proposal to add a site to the NPL.

DATES:

Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.

Docket Identification Numbers by Site Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. Argonaut Mine Jackson, CA EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0151 Bonita Peak Mining District San Juan County, CO EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0152 Riverside Ground Water Contamination Indianapolis, IN EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0153 Valley Pike VOCs Riverside, OH EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0154 Wappinger Creek Dutchess County, NY EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0155 Dorado Ground Water Contamination Dorado, PR EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0156 Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. Live Oak, TX EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0157 North 25th Street Glass and Zinc Clarksburg, WV EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0158

Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate docket number, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section II, “Public Review/Public Comment,” of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email: [email protected], Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are sites listed on the NPL? E. What happens to sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites? G. How are sites removed from the NPL? H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure? K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing? II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule? B. How do I access the documents? C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA Headquarters docket? D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional dockets? E. How do I submit my comments? F. What happens to my comments? G. What should I consider when preparing my comments? H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over? I. May I view public comments submitted by others? J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL? III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):

(1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.

(2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).

(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.

• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.

The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.

Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. Plant site,” does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up?

In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

The EPA also has developed an NPL Construction Completion List (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-6.

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

The EPA is improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.

A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at http://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the ADDRESSES section above).

B. How do I access the documents?

You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the regional dockets after the publication of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours.

The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)

The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:

• Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.

• Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.

• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.

• Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8799.

• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.

• Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.

• Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7097.

• Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.

• Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947-4250.

• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically.

You may use the docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access documents in the Headquarters docket (see instructions included in the ADDRESSES section). Please note that there are differences between the Headquarters docket and the regional dockets and those differences are outlined in this preamble, Sections II.C and D.

C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA Headquarters docket?

The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; documentation records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record.

D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional dockets?

The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

E. How do I submit my comments?

Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail.

F. What happens to my comments?

The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an “as received” basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public docket at http://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public dockets system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL?

In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add eight sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.

The sites are presented in the table below.

General Superfund Section State Site name City/County CA Argonaut Mine Jackson. CO Bonita Peak Mining District San Juan County. IN Riverside Ground Water Contamination Indianapolis. OH Valley Pike VOCs Riverside. NY Wappinger Creek Dutchess County. PR Dorado Ground Water Contamination Dorado. TX Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. Live Oak. WV North 25th Street Glass and Zinc Clarksburg. B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL

The EPA is withdrawing its previous proposal to add the Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base site in Lockbourne, Ohio to the NPL because all appropriate cleanup actions have been taken at the site in accordance with its reuse as an airport. The U.S. Air Force will continue to provide funding to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency under its Defense-State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) to provide cleanup oversight and stewardship of institutional controls in accordance with state law. The proposed rule can be found at 59 FR 2568 (January 18, 1994). Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0002 for supporting documentation regarding this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.

Dated: March 28, 2016. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2016-07671 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Part 1355 RIN 0970-AC47 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System AGENCY:

Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION:

Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

On February 9, 2015, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) regulations to modify the requirements for title IV-E agencies to collect and report data to ACF on children in out-of-home care and who were adopted or in a legal guardianship with a title IV-E subsidized adoption or guardianship agreement. In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), ACF proposes to require that state title IV-E agencies collect and report additional data elements related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) in the AFCARS. ACF will consider the public comments on this SNPRM as well as comments already received on the February 9, 2015 NPRM and issue one final AFCARS rule.

DATES:

Submit written or electronic comments on this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

We encourage the public to submit comments electronically to ensure they are received in a timely manner. Please be sure to include identifying information on any correspondence. To download an electronic version of the proposed rule, please go to http://www.regulations.gov/. You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by any of the following methods:

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

Mail: Written comments may be submitted to Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Director, Policy Division, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.

• Please be aware that mail sent in response to this SNPRM may take an additional 3 to 4 days to process due to security screening of mail.

Hand Delivery/Courier: If you choose to use an express, overnight, or other special delivery method, please ensure that the carrier will deliver to the above address Monday through Friday during the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding holidays.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Comments that concern information collection requirements must be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this preamble. A copy of these comments also may be sent to the Department representative listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Director, Policy Division. To contact Kathleen McHugh, please use the following email address: [email protected] Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents I. Background II. Statutory Authority III. Public Participation IV. Consultation and Regulation Development V. Section-by-Section Discussion of the SNPRM VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis VII. Tribal Consultation Statement I. Background Adoption and Foster Care Automated Reporting System (AFCARS)

Section 479 of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires that ACF regulate a national data collection system that provides comprehensive demographic and case-specific information on all children who are in foster care or adopted with title IV-E agency involvement (42 U.S.C. 679). Historically, the broad underlying legislative directive has always been the establishment and administration of a system for “the collection of data with respect to adoption and foster care in the United States.” Such data collection system is the Adoption and Foster Care Automated Reporting System (AFCARS).

The AFCARS statute with regard to data collection systems requires the following: (1) The data collection system developed and implemented shall avoid unnecessary diversion of resources from adoption and foster care agencies; (2) the data collection system shall assure that any data that is collected is reliable and consistent over time and among jurisdictions through the use of uniform definitions and methodologies; (3) the data collection system shall provide: Comprehensive national information with respect to the demographic characteristics of adoptive and foster children and their biological and adoptive foster parents; the status of the foster care population, the number and characteristics of children place in and removed from foster care; children adopted or for whom adoptions have been terminated; children placed in foster care outside the state which has placement and care responsibility; the extent and nature of assistance provided by federal, state, and local adoption and foster care programs; the characteristics of the children with respect to whom such assistance is provided; and the annual number of children in foster care who are identified as sex trafficking victims including those who were victims before entering foster care; and those who were victims while in foster care; and (4) the data collection system will utilize appropriate requirements and incentives to ensure that the system functions reliably throughout the United States.

ACF issued the AFCARS NPRM (80 FR 7132, hereafter referred to as the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM) to amend the AFCARS regulations at 45 CFR 1355.40 and the appendices to part 1355. In it, ACF proposed to modify the requirements for title IV-E agencies to collect and report data to ACF on children in out-of-home care and who were adopted or in a legal guardianship with a title IV-E subsidized adoption or guardianship agreement. At the time the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM was issued, ACF concluded that it did not have enforcement authority regarding ICWA and, therefore, was not able to make the requested changes or additions to the AFCARS data elements regarding ICWA.

However, in the time since publication of the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM, ACF legal counsel re-examined the issue and determined it is within ACF's existing authority to collect state-level ICWA-related data on American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children in child welfare systems pursuant to section 479 of the Social Security Act. Such determination was informed by comments received on the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM as well as an extensive re-evaluation of the scope of ACF's statutory and regulatory authority.

Indian Child Welfare Act

In 1970, President Nixon declared that termination, the then-current federal policy to terminate Indian tribal governments, sell tribal land, and move AI/AN peoples from ancestral lands to assimilate them into `American' society, was wrong and should be replaced by Indian self-determination which recognized the inherent retained right of Indian nations to govern themselves. From that time, the federal government began implementing new policies of Indian self-determination under which tribal sovereignty and self-governance were fostered, allowing tribes to operate programs once solely administered by the federal government. It also increased federal support and benefits available to tribes to strengthen capacity and self-sufficiency.

Against this backdrop, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted in 1978 to address concerns over the consequences to Indian children, Indian families, and Indian tribes of child welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes. See 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. ICWA has been characterized as embodying the “gold standard” for child welfare policy and practice in the United States and establishes minimum federal jurisdictional, procedural, and substantive standards intended to achieve the purposes of protecting the rights of Indian children to live with their families, to stabilize and foster continued tribal existence, and to facilitate permanency for children, families, and tribes.

However, ACF has never collected ICWA-related data. Using the data elements proposed in the SNPRM, ACF proposes to collect ICWA-related data on AI/AN children in child welfare systems for several uses in the public interest including: To assess the current state of foster care and adoption of Indian children under the Act, to develop future national policies concerning ACF programs that affect Indian children under the Act, and to meet federal trust obligations under established federal policies.

ICWA was enacted by Congress in response to alarming numbers of AI/AN children being removed from their families by public and private child welfare agencies, most often being placed in non-Indian homes far from their tribal communities. Congress found that, “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.” (25 U.S.C. 1901 (3)) Accordingly, through ICWA, Congress declared the policy of the United States is to protect the best interests of Indian children, to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by establishing minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families, and to place such children in foster or adoptive homes that reflect the unique values of Indian cultures. Finally, Congress calls for providing assistance to Indian tribes in the operation of child and family service programs. (25 U.S.C. 1902) ICWA was enacted to protect American Indian families and to give tribes a role in making child welfare decisions for AI/AN children. AI/AN children are subject to ICWA when they are unmarried persons under the age of 18 and are either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and are the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. ICWA expressly requires, among other things, that: (1) A tribe is notified when the state places an “Indian child” in foster care or seeks to terminate parental rights on behalf of such a child, (2) a tribe is given an opportunity to intervene in any state proceeding for foster care placement and termination of parental rights to a child subject to ICWA, and (3) that a preference be given to placing the Indian child with extended family or tribal families.

Use of AFCARS Data

AFCARS is designed to collect uniform, reliable information from title IV-B and title IV-E agencies on children who are under the agencies' responsibility for placement, care, or supervision. AFCARS was established to provide data that would assist in policy development and program management. Although ICWA was passed more than 30 years ago, it is unclear how well state agencies and courts have implemented ICWA's requirements into practice. Even in states with large AI/AN populations, there may be confusion regarding how and when to apply the law, including providing notice to tribes and making active efforts to prevent removal and reunite children with their Indian families as required under ICWA. This is further complicated by the fact that there is no comprehensive national data on the status of AI/AN children for whom ICWA applies at any stage in the adoption or foster care system. AFCARS data can bridge this gap.

Additional AFCARS data elements are proposed to enhance the type and quality of information title IV-E agencies report to ACF. ACF's proposals, embodied in this SNPRM, are motivated by the Administration's vision of healthy, resilient, and thriving Indian children and families as well as the continued vitality and integrity of Indian tribes. More specifically, the proposals reflected in this SNPRM manifest Department-wide priorities to affirmatively protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes, families, and children.

ACF proposes to collect data elements in AFCARS related to ICWA's statutory standards for removal, foster care placement, and adoption proceedings. More specifically, through this SNPRM, ACF will improve the AFCARS data collection system to provide more comprehensive demographic and case-specific information on all children, including children subject to ICWA, who are in foster care or adopted with title IV-E agency involvement. Additionally, ACF intends to use the data to:

1. Address the unique needs of AI/AN children in foster care or adoption, and their families.

In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report titled “Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on Implementation Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance to States” (GAO-05-290). In addition to noting that no national data on children subject to ICWA was available, GAO asserts that the extent to which states and tribes work together to implement ICWA and title IV-E/IV-B requirements affects outcomes for Indian children in state foster care systems. The report also discusses how the Adoption and Safe Families Act (Pub. L. 105-89) influences placement decisions and outcomes for Indian children, noting the following: “Decisions regarding the placement of children subject to ICWA as they enter and leave foster care can be influenced by how long it takes to determine whether a child is subject to the law, the availability of American Indian foster and adoptive homes, and the level of cooperation between states and tribes. According to several child welfare officials, these factors, which are unique to American Indian children, can play an important role in placement decisions, including the characteristics of the foster home in which the child will be placed, the number of placements a child will have, and the duration of the stay.” (GAO-05-290, p.3). The proposed ICWA data will help address the unique needs of Indian children in foster care or adoption and their families by clarifying how the ICWA requirements and how title IV-E/IV-B requirements affect placement of Indian children.

2. Assess the current state of adoption and foster care programs and relevant trends that affect AI/AN families.

American Indian and Alaska Native children are over-represented in child welfare systems at higher rates than any other racial or ethnic group. In 2013, American Indian children were over-represented among children in foster care by a factor of 2.4, compared to their proportion of the population. From 2000 to 2013, the degree of over-representation of AI/AN children substantially increased from 1.5 to 2.4, and the degree of disproportionality varies widely by state (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2015). At this time, there is very limited data available to help understand the reasons for the varying degrees of disproportionality. Proposed ICWA-related AFCARS data elements will shed light on the relationship between implementing ICWA requirements and outcomes for AI/AN children. In addition, the proposed data elements will provide additional information to help identify the real or perceived barriers encountered by states in identifying AI/AN children in their child welfare systems. Finally, proposed ICWA-related AFCARS data elements will provide currently unavailable information that will help to assess the extent to which the fidelity of ICWA implementation influences permanent placements for Indian children and the length of stay in out-of-home care. The proposed ICWA data will also help to inform efforts to compare program practices, processes, or outcomes between states and over the course of time, which would allow the Children's Bureau to identify trends and highlight and build upon strengths and best practices.

3. Improve training and technical assistance to help states comply with title IV-E, and title IV-B of the Social Security Act.

Through the Children's Bureau, ACF provides state title IV-E agencies with technical assistance to help agencies implement federal requirements and improve their child welfare programs (as authorized by section 435 and 476 of the Social Security Act). Between federal fiscal year (FFY) 2010 and FFY 2014, ACF received 31 requests for tailored consultation from state agencies and title IV-B tribes (separately or in collaboration) for assistance with examining or supporting ICWA implementation. In response to these requests, ACF-supported technical assistance providers delivered more than 3,700 hours of direct, tailored consultation to state agencies and tribes related to ICWA.

In FFY 2015, 24 state title IV-E agencies participated in discussions with ACF and its technical assistance providers about their potential areas of need for capacity building and improvement. One third of these agencies identified themselves as having ICWA implementation related needs for technical assistance. Data related to ICWA will assist ACF to improve training content, target subject areas, and identify geographies in which training will be helpful.

4. Develop future national policies concerning its programs.

Additional proposed ICWA-related data will allow ACF and the Children's Bureau to more effectively plan, coordinate, and lead AI/AN programming across ACF operations, with other Departments such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and throughout the federal government. By collecting additional data, the federal government will also have a more complete understanding of how state agencies interact with Indian children and families as well as how many children subject to ICWA come to the attention of state child welfare agencies nationwide. This additional data will help align performance measures, build an evidence base that informs policy and practice, and better ensure that federal funds are being directed in a way that delivers significantly better results for AI/AN families. This critical role aligns with the research, evaluation, and technical assistance responsibilities of the Children's Bureau.

5. Inform and expand partnerships across federal agencies that invest in Indian families and that promote resilient, thriving tribal communities through several initiatives.

AFCARS data on the wellbeing of AI/AN children will help multiple federal agencies identify needs and gaps, expand best practices, and shape new policy and technical assistance. Several of the current interagency initiatives that will benefit include:

Generation Indigenous. On December 3, 2014, President Obama launched Generation Indigenous (Gen-I), “an initiative that takes a comprehensive, culturally appropriate approach to help improve the lives of, and opportunities for, Native youth.” On July 9, 2015, the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, issued Executive Memo M-15-17 identifying Native youth budget priorities including “services that keep families together. These could be family assistance services, home improvement programs, alternatives to incarceration, and employment support services. Agencies should focus on programs that support the capacity building and programmatic support necessary to implement ICWA.”

The Department of Justice Defending Childhood Initiative and the Task Force on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence. The Task Force report recommended that ACF, BIA, DOJ, and tribes develop a modernized unified data-collection system designed to collect ICWA-related AFCARS data on all AI/AN children who are placed into foster care by their agency.

HHS Secretary's Tribal Advisory Committee (STAC). In 2014, the STAC specifically identified improved federal data collection on ICWA as a priority need. In early 2015, the STAC identified AFCARS as a vehicle for ICWA data elements. The STAC expressed their view that ACF has a critical role in collecting important data, promoting effective tribal/state collaborations, increasing state capacity to comply with ICWA, and reversing the inequities and disproportionate representation and poor outcomes for children that can occur when ICWA is not followed. In order to assist the Administration in implementing ICWA and protecting AI/AN children and families, the STAC requested enhanced “collection of data elements related to key ICWA requirements in individual ICWA cases and greater oversight of the title IV-B requirement for states to consult with tribes on measures to comply with ICWA (STAC follow-up letter to the Secretary, June, 30, 2015, pp 9-10).” http://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/iea/tribal-affairs/about-stac/index.html#.

• Interagency ICWA Working Group Projects, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs initiative to update state guidance on ICWA and promulgate ICWA regulations. The BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs updated the Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings (80 FR 10146, issued February 25, 2015, hereafter referred to as the Guidelines) and has issued proposed regulations for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings (proposed at 80 FR 14880, issued March 20, 2015) to help ensure Indian children are not removed from their communities, cultures, and extended families in conflict with ICWA's express mandates.

Consistent with the Administration's focus on Indian children, the Department of the Interior, DOJ, and HHS engaged in extensive interagency collaboration to promote compliance with ICWA and agreed to continue to collaborate. This work involved collaborating on ICWA-related regulations, including the BIA regulations and this SNPRM.

6. Implement Tribal sovereignty principles and Federal trust responsibilities.

Improving AFCARS to inform ACF and other federal agencies is consistent with ACF's implementation of government-to-government principles of engagement with AI/AN tribes and respect for our trust responsibilities. ACF's understanding of fundamental principles of tribal sovereignty is reflected in both the Department's and ACF's Tribal Consultation Policies which state:

“The special government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, established in 1787, is based on the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders, and reaffirms the right of Indian Tribes to self-government and self-determination. Indian Tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their citizens and territory. The U.S. shall continue to work with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Tribal self-government, Tribal trust resources, Tribal treaties and other rights.”

“Tribal self-government has been demonstrated to improve and perpetuate the government-to-government relationship and strengthen Tribal control over Federal funding that it receives, and its internal program management. Indian Tribes participation in the development of public health and human services policy ensures locally relevant and culturally appropriate approaches to public issues.” (Section 3, Department of Health and Human Services Tribal Consultation Policy).

“Our Nation, under the law of the U.S. and in accordance with treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions, has recognized the right of Indian tribes to self-government and self-determination. Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The U.S. continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, tribal treaties, and other rights.” (Section 4, ACF Tribal Consultation Policy).

These principles are also reflected in ICWA through Congressional recognition of “the special relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes and their members and the Federal responsibility to Indian people.” (25 U.S.C. 1901)

ACF announced its intent to publish a SNPRM in a Federal Register document issued on April 2, 2015 (80 FR 17713). Section 479 of the Social Security Act contains some express limits on the authority of ACF to collect data including: Data collected under AFCARS must avoid an unnecessary diversion of resources from agencies responsible for adoption and foster care (section 479(c)(1) of the Act) and must assure that any data that is collected is reliable and consistent over time and among jurisdictions through the use of uniform definitions and methodologies (section 479(c)(2) of the Act). With respect to the requirement in section 479(c)(1) of the Act, ACF tailored the proposed data elements to collect only the most essential information regarding Indian children in foster care and children who have been adopted with state title IV-E agency involvement. Most data elements will only be required for children who are determined to be Indian children as defined in ICWA. Furthermore, the statutory authority under section 479 of the Act is limited to data with respect to adoption and foster care. ACF is not proposing to require tribal title IV-E agencies to collect and report ICWA-related data elements in proposed paragraph (i) because ICWA does not apply to placements by Indian tribes. The data elements in § 1355.43(i) are subject to the same compliance and penalty requirements in §§ 1355.45 and 1355.46, respectively, proposed in the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM (80 FR 7187-7192 and 7220-7221).

II. Statutory Authority

Sections 479 and 474(f) of the Act provide HHS the authority to require that title IV-E agencies maintain a data collection system which provides comprehensive national information related to adopted and foster children and requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services regulate a national data collection system to provide comprehensive case level information and impose penalties for failure to submit AFCARS data under certain circumstances. Section 1102 of the Act instructs the Secretary to promulgate regulations necessary for the effective administration of the functions for which she is responsible under the Act.

III. Public Participation

ACF invites the public to comment on all aspects of the ICWA-related data elements proposed in this SNPRM. In addition, ACF specifically invites comment on which, if any, of the proposed data elements the state title IV-E agencies currently collect. ACF will review and consider all comments that are germane and received during the comment period on this SNPRM as well as those previously submitted in response to the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM, and issue one final rule on AFCARS.

IV. Consultation and Regulation Development

To inform the development of the ICWA-related data elements proposed in this SNPRM, ACF reviewed public comments received in response to the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM, held tribal and state consultation and listening sessions, and consulted with federal agency experts, as outlined below.

1. Consideration of comments on the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM that addresses ICWA-related data elements.

ACF received approximately 45 comments that proposed/recommended including new data elements in AFCARS related to ICWA. Twenty-five of the commenters were tribes or tribal organizations, four were state child welfare departments, and the remaining were public interest organizations, academics/universities, and individuals. Of the 45 comments, 18 commenters submitted the same or similar form letter that recommended additional data elements providing information about the applicability of ICWA for children in out-of-home care and proposed revisions to the data elements proposed in the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM to capture ICWA-related data. The commenters recommended approximately 62 new or revised data elements that addressed the following: Identification of Indian children and their family structure; tribal notification and intervention in state court proceedings; the relationship of the foster parents and other providers to the Indian child; decisions to place an Indian child in out-of-home care (including data on active efforts and continued custody); whether a placement was licensed by an Indian tribe; whether the placement preferences in ICWA were followed and both the voluntary and involuntary termination of parental rights. ACF did not receive specific suggestions from the four state child welfare agencies on which ICWA-related data elements to include in AFCARS.

2. Tribal consultation session.

The Children's Bureau held a tribal consultation via conference call on May 1, 2015, that was co-facilitated by the Children's Bureau's (CB) Associate Commissioner and the Chairperson of the ACF Tribal Advisory Committee, who also serves as the Vice Chair of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council. The CB conducted the session to obtain input from tribal leaders on proposed AFCARS data elements related to ICWA. Comments were solicited during the call to determine essential data elements that title IV-E agencies should report to AFCARS including, but not limited to: Whether the requirements of ICWA were applied to a child; notice for child welfare proceedings; active efforts to prevent removal or to reunify the Indian child with the child's biological or adoptive parents or Indian custodian; placement preferences under ICWA; and terminations of parental rights for an Indian child. Tribal representatives did not provide specific suggestions on the call but noted during the call that they would provide formal comments on the SNPRM when it was issued.

3. Solicited input from members of the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA).

The NAPCWA, an affiliate of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) hosted a conference call with state members of NAPCWA (i.e., representatives of state child welfare agencies) and the Children's Bureau on April 27, 2015. The purpose of the call was to obtain input from state members on what data state title IV-E agencies currently collect regarding ICWA and what they believed were the most important information title IV-E agencies should report in AFCARS related to ICWA. Representatives from 13 states participated in the conference call and stated that some of their states currently collect information in their information system related to Indian children, such as tribal membership, tribal notification, and tribal enrollment status. They noted that some of the information with regard to ICWA, such as placement preferences and active efforts, are contained in case files, case notes, or other narratives, and not currently captured within their information systems, and noted issues with extraction of such data for AFCARS reporting. They also indicated that their information systems would need to be changed and upgraded to report ICWA-related data in AFCARS and that new processes would need to be developed to collect and extract the requested information. They noted that they would need to train workers to accurately collect the data. They indicated that additional funding is necessary for costs associated with data collection. Participating state representatives also expressed concern about adding data elements that would require information from state courts, unlike other AFCARS data elements which are available within the title IV-E agency's information system. Given that state title IV-E agencies and courts do not typically exchange data, workers may need to gather and enter state court information manually.

4. Input from federal agency experts regarding ICWA.

In December 2014, at the White House Tribal Nations conference, Attorney General Holder announced an initiative to promote compliance with ICWA. This initiative included partnering with the Departments of Health and Human Services and the Interior to ensure all tools available to the federal government are used to promote compliance with ICWA. Federal Departments have a strong interest in collecting data elements related to ICWA. To further interagency collaboration in this area, DOI, DOJ, and HHS have engaged in extensive discussions focused on ICWA, including the sharing of agencies' expertise for the development of ICWA-related regulations, including AFCARS.

As part of on-going intra- and inter-agency collaboration, ACF consulted with federal experts on what data exists, or not, and its utility in understanding the well-being of Indian children, youth, and families. ACF also consulted with federal partners on the ICWA statutory requirements in 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., DOI's Guidelines, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement ICWA Regulations for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings (80 FR 14880, issued March 20, 2015).

After considering all of the aforementioned input, ACF proposes the addition of paragraph (i) to § 1355.43 (as proposed in the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM). Section 479 of the Act permits broader data collection in order to establish a true national data collection system that provides comprehensive demographic and case-specific information on all children who are in foster care and adopted with title IV-E agency involvement, to assess the current state of adoption and foster care programs in general, as well as to develop future national policies concerning these programs. Collecting data on Indian children, including ICWA-related data, is within the authority of section 479 because it is in line with the statutory goal of assessing the status of children in foster care. ACF is exercising its authority to propose a limited new set of ICWA-related data because section 479(a) authorizes “the collection of data with respect to adoption and foster care in the United States” and Indian children are children living within the United States and are those intended to benefit from both ICWA and titles IV-B and IV-E. The supplemental proposed rule includes data relevant to AI/AN children that supports ACF in assessing the current state of the well-being of Indian children as well as state implementation of title IV-E and IV-B. ACF proposes to use the collected data to make data-informed assessments; and to develop future policies concerning tribal-state consultation, ICWA implementation, and training and technical assistance to support states in the implementation of title IV-B and title IV-E programs.

ACF will analyze all pertinent comments to this SNPRM along with prior comments received on the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM and issue one final rule on AFCARS in which the ICWA-related data elements will be included. ACF understands from consultation and the regulatory development process that some of the information sought in this SNPRM for inclusion in AFCARS might be contained in agency case files. However, a number of the proposed data elements seek information related to court findings and this represents a shift toward increased reporting on the activity of the court in AFCARS. In this SNPRM, ACF proposes that state title IV-E agencies report information believed to be contained in court orders that the state title IV-E agency would have ready access to or would typically be contained within the state title IV-E agency case files. ACF is seeking input from state title IV-E agencies on whether they would be readily able to report the information in AFCARS for the data elements that relate to court activities and if there would be difficulties in doing so. We encourage agencies to describe the nature of the issues they would face, and possible approaches to addressing these concerns in light of the importance of having this information.

V. Section-by-Section Discussion of SNPRM Section 1355.43(i) Data Elements Related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)

In paragraph (i), ACF proposes to require that state title IV-E agencies collect and report certain ICWA-related information on children in the AFCARS out-of-home care reporting population. ACF does not require state title IV-E agencies to report the data elements proposed in paragraph (i) for an Indian child who remains under the tribe's responsibility, placement, and care but for which the state provides IV-E foster care maintenance payments pursuant to a state-tribal agreement as described in section 472(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. This is because the state's agreement with the tribe is to provide title IV-E foster care maintenance payments to a child under the tribe's placement and care responsibility. Additionally, tribal title IV-E agencies are not required to collect and report the data elements proposed in paragraph (i). The data elements in § 1355.43(i) are subject to the same compliance and penalty requirements in §§ 1355.45 and 1355.46, respectively, proposed in the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM (80 FR 7187-7192 and 7220-7221).

Definitions

In paragraph (i)(1), ACF proposes to require that unless otherwise specified, the following terms have the same meaning as in ICWA, at 25 U.S.C. 1903: Child custody proceeding, extended family member, Indian, Indian child, Indian child's tribe, Indian custodian, Indian organization, Indian tribe, parent, reservation, and tribal court. It is important to note that the term “Indian child” in this section does not refer to a racial classification, but rather is defined by ICWA as a child who is either a member of an Indian tribe, or is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. Each term is listed in the regulatory language below with the corresponding ICWA statutory citation.

In paragraph (i)(2), ACF proposes to require that for all children in the out-of-home care reporting population per § 1355.41(a), the state title IV-E agency must complete the data elements in paragraphs (i)(3) through (5).

Identifying an “Indian Child” Under the Indian Child Welfare Act

In paragraph (i)(3), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether the state title IV-E agency inquired about pertinent information on a child's status as an “Indian child” under ICWA. This includes: Reporting whether the child is a member of or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe; the child's biological or adoptive parents are members of an Indian tribe; inquiring about the child's status as an “Indian child” with the child, his/her biological or adoptive parents (if not deceased), and the child's Indian custodian (if the child has one); ascertaining whether the domicile or residence of the child, parent, or the Indian custodian is known by the agency, or is shown to be, on an Indian reservation.

This data will provide information on whether state title IV-E agencies and state courts are evaluating whether the child meets the definition of “Indian child” under ICWA. These are threshold questions indicating whether the state title IV-E agency knows or has “reason to know” that a child is an Indian child and thus is subject to the protections under ICWA. Without inquiry, many Indian children are not identified, thereby denying children, parents, and Indian tribes procedural and substantive protections under ICWA. These data elements represent the minimum that a state title IV-E agency should be collecting to determine whether the child is an Indian child under ICWA. Such elements will help establish demographics necessary in identifying ICWA cases that involve parents who are tribal members or that involve an Indian custodian. Proactively identifying Indian children will improve the AFCARS data on AI/AN child foster care cases, adoption through the title IV-E agencies, as well as provide a base for understanding the percentage of AI/AN cases to which ICWA applies. More accurate data will help ACF better understand the scope of ICWA's impact in AI/AN child foster care cases and state systems, help identify where the application of ICWA may need reinforcement, and help inform ACF technical assistance to state title IV-E agencies.

Application of ICWA

In paragraph (i)(4), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency indicate whether it knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child under ICWA. If so, the state title IV-E agency must indicate the date that the state title IV-E agency discovered information that indicates that the child is or may be an Indian child and identify all federally recognized Indian tribes identified that may potentially be the Indian child's tribe(s).

In paragraph (i)(5), ACF proposes that the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether a court order indicates that a court found that ICWA applies, the date of the finding, and the name of the Indian tribe if listed on the court order.

If the state title IV-E agency responds with “yes” to the data elements in paragraphs (i)(4) or (5), then the agency must complete the remaining applicable paragraphs (i)(6) through (29) of this section, which includes information on: Transfers to tribal court; notification of child custody proceedings; active efforts to prevent removal and to reunify with the Indian family; foster care and adoptive placement preferences; and termination of parental rights.

Because not all AI/AN children meet the definition of “Indian child” under ICWA, these data elements are critical to identify the national number of AI/AN child foster care cases to which ICWA applies. Data elements related to whether ICWA applies are essential because application of ICWA triggers procedural and substantive protections. The date the agency received information as to whether the child is an Indian child under ICWA is essential to understanding the time-lapse between knowing that a child is an Indian child and tribal notification. A long time-lapse can indicate a delay in the application of the ICWA protections. Additionally, identifying Indian tribes that may potentially be the Indian child's tribe will help tribes, states, and the federal government direct resources into developing relationships that will streamline the process of identifying Indian children.

Transfer to Tribal Court

In paragraphs (i)(6) and (7), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report certain information on whether a case was transferred from state court to tribal court, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1911(b). In paragraphs (i)(6), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether a court order indicates that the Indian child's parent, Indian custodian, or Indian child's tribe requested, orally on the record or in writing, that the state court transfer the case to the tribal court of the Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1911(b), at any point during the report period. In paragraph (i)(7), if the state court denied the request to transfer the case to tribal court, ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether there is a court order that indicates the reason(s) why the case was not transferred to the tribal court. If a court order exists, justification for denying a transfer must be indicated from among a list of three options, as outlined in ICWA statute: (1) Either of the parents objected to transferring the case to the tribal court; or (2) the tribal court declined the transfer to the tribal court; or (3) the state court found good cause not to transfer the case to the tribal court.

The data in this section will provide an understanding of how many children in foster care with ICWA protections are or are not transferred to the Indian child's tribe and an understanding of the reasons why a state court did not transfer the case. Additionally, ACYF-CB-PI-14-03 (issued March 5, 2014) requires, among other things, that states develop, in consultation with tribes, measures to determine whether tribes are able to effectively intervene and, where appropriate, transfer proceedings to tribal jurisdiction. One focus of the Child and Family Services Reviews conducted by the Children's Bureau is the importance of preserving a child's cultural connections. This data will aid in understanding how a state may preserve a child's connection to his/her tribe. In addition, transfer data will aid in identifying capacity needs and issues in tribal child welfare systems that may prevent tribes from taking jurisdiction. Transfer data will help identify opportunities to build relationships between states and tribes. The data will also indicate whether additional tribal court resources are needed to improve transfer rates, or additional training for state courts is required regarding appropriate “good cause” exceptions to transfer.

Notification

In paragraphs (i)(8) through (10), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report certain information about legal notice to the Indian child's parent, Indian custodian, and Indian child's tribe regarding the child custody proceeding as defined in ICWA. ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report: Whether the Indian child's biological or adoptive parent or Indian custodian were given proper legal notice of the child custody proceeding more than 10 days prior to the first child custody proceeding in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a); whether the Indian child's tribe (if known) was given proper legal notice of the child custody proceedings more than 10 days prior to the first child custody proceeding; which Indian tribe(s) were sent notice of the child custody proceeding; and whether the state title IV-E agency replied with additional information that the Indian child's tribe(s) requested, if such a request was made.

State child welfare agencies may have this information in their case files, regardless whether the notice was sent by the agency or the court. Notice to the Indian child's parents, Indian custodian, and tribe about child custody proceedings, as defined in ICWA, and the timing of the notice is an essential procedural protection provided by ICWA. ICWA requires that the party seeking foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child's tribe of the pending proceedings, including notice of their right of intervention and that no foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days after notice is received (25 U.S.C. 1912(a)). Notifying individuals and tribes of their rights and requirements in every child custody proceeding is critical to meaningful access to and participation in adjudications. Further, improper notice is a common basis for an appeal under ICWA, resulting in failure of process and unnecessary costs and delay. The data reported in this section will provide an understanding of how legal notice and adherence to the timeframes in ICWA may impact an Indian child's case. The data will also help identify technology, capacity, and training needs for meeting legal notice requirements, as well as opportunities for technical assistance and relationship-building between states and tribes.

Active Efforts To Prevent Removal and Reunify the Indian Family

In paragraphs (i)(11) through (13), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether and when the state title IV-E agency began to make active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family prior to the child's most recent out-of-home care episode, whether the court found in a court order that the state title IV-E agency made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that these efforts were unsuccessful, and what active efforts the state title IV-E agency made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family (see 25 U.S.C. 1912(d)).

Providing active efforts to prevent the breakup of Indian families is a key component of the ICWA protections (25 U.S.C. 1912(d)). Under ICWA, any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must demonstrate to the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to avoid the need to remove the Indian child, or terminate parental rights. Thus, state title IV-E agencies are required to identify and offer programs and services to prevent the breakup of Indian families which includes services to maintain and reunite an Indian child with his or her family and to promote the stability and security of the Indian family. Where such efforts are meaningful and effective, exits from child welfare systems increase and a reduction in disproportionality in state child welfare systems logically follows.

Proposed ICWA-related AFCARS data regarding active efforts will provide a better understanding of the status of Indian children in foster care, how these efforts may impact an Indian child's case, and the role of the courts in making findings. The data will also help identify service needs and efficacy; capacity needs; the need for training and technical assistance; and opportunities to build relationships between states and tribes.

Removals

In paragraph (i)(14), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report whether the state court found by clear and convincing evidence, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e); and whether the court finding indicates that the state court's finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e).

This is an important protection under ICWA for Indian children given that the standard for removal of an Indian child is established by ICWA and may be different than in non-ICWA foster care cases. In ICWA, Congress created minimum federal standards for removal to prevent the continued breakup of Indian families. ICWA's legislative history reflects clear Congressional intent: “It is clear then that the Indian child welfare crisis is of massive proportions and that Indian families face vastly greater risks of involuntary separation than are typical of our society as a whole.” (H. Rep. 95-1386 (July 24, 1978)). The proposed ICWA-related AFCARS data element will provide data on the extent to which Indian children are removed in a manner that conforms to ICWA's statutory standard, informs ACF about the frequency of and evidentiary standards applied to removals of Indian children, helps identify needs for training and technical assistance related to ICWA statutory standards, and highlights substantive opportunities for building and improving relationships between states and tribes.

Foster Care and Pre-Adoptive Placement Preferences

In paragraphs (i)(15) through (18), ACF proposes to require that state title IV-E agencies report certain information on the foster care and pre-adoptive placement of Indian children, specifically, the placement of such children in the least restrictive setting that most approximates a family within reasonable proximity to his or her home in accordance with preferences established in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(b), or preferences established by tribal resolution 25. U.S.C. 1915(c).

In paragraph (i)(15), the state title IV-E agency must indicate which foster care and pre-adoptive placements from a list of five are available to accept placement of the Indian child. The five placements options are: A member of the Indian child's extended family; a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe; an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority; an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs; and a placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).

In paragraph (i)(16), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the Indian child's current placement as of the end of the report period meets the placement preferences of ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed from a list of six response options. The placements are: A member of the Indian child's extended family; a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe; an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority; an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs; a placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c); or none.

In paragraph (i)(17), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the state court made a finding of good cause, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe, if the placement preferences for foster care and pre-adoptive placements were not followed. In paragraph (i)(18), the state title IV-E agency must indicate the state court's basis for the finding of good cause, as indicated on the court order, from a list of five response options: Request of the biological parents; request of the Indian child; the unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915; the extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child; or other.

The requirements around placement preferences in ICWA are a key piece of the protections mandated by ICWA. Placement preferences serve to protect the best interests of Indian children and promote the stability and security of families and Indian tribes by keeping Indian children with their extended families or in Indian foster homes and communities. The placement preferences in ICWA are congruent with the title IV-E plan requirement in section 471(a)(19) of the Act regarding preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining the placement for a child. Data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being indicates that opportunities for kinship placements vary widely by age for AI/AN children when compared to other children of the same age. New AFCARS data will help to adequately assess the current status of kinship placements as well as to help identify a national plan for meeting permanency goals through kinship placements.

Factors unique to Indian children, including the availability of American Indian foster homes, influence decisions about the placement of Indian children. These factors include the characteristics of the foster home, the number of placements a child will have, and the duration of the stay (GAO-05-290, p.3). The information from these data elements will allow ACF to distinguish between ICWA cases in which there was no available ICWA-preferred placement and those cases where an available ICWA-preferred placement was not used despite its availability. The data will help to identify trends or problems that may require enhanced recruitment of potential Indian foster homes or relative placements. This information will help to identify the training and technical assistance needs of states to support recruitment and support foster families to meet the unique cultural, social, extracurricular, and linguistic needs of Indian children. Reporting information on good cause will help agencies better understand why the ICWA placement preferences are not followed. In addition, such information will aid in targeting training and resources needed to assist states in improving Indian child outcomes.

Termination of Parental Rights

In paragraphs (i)(19) through (24), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report information regarding voluntary and involuntary terminations of parental rights (TPR), which include tribal customary adoptions. The information includes: Whether the rights of the Indian child's parents or Indian custodian were involuntarily or voluntarily terminated; whether, prior to ordering an involuntary termination of parental rights, the state court found beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f); whether the state court indicates that its finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f); and if the TPR was voluntary, whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the biological or adoptive mother and biological or adoptive father or Indian custodian was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction and accompanied by the presiding judge's certificate that the terms and consequences of the consent were fully explained in detail and were fully understood by the parent or Indian custodian in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913.

Distinguishing between involuntary and voluntary terminations of parental rights is important in ICWA given specific protections that must be provided in each context (25 U.S.C. 1912(e), (f) and 25 U.S.C. 1913). In addition, termination standards are important protections for Indian children under ICWA given that Congress specifically created minimum federal standards for removal of an Indian child to prevent the breakup of Indian families and to promote the stability and security of families and Indian tribes by preserving the child's links to their parents and to the tribe through the child's parent(s). Further, a TPR may affect a child's ability to be a full member of his/her tribe, preventing the child from accessing services and benefits available to tribal members. Whether the Indian child's parents' rights were terminated in a manner that conforms to the statutory standard informs ACF as to when an Indian child's parental rights are terminated, helps identify the need for training and technical assistance to meet statutory standards, and highlights substantive opportunities for building relationships between states and tribes.

Adoption Proceedings

In paragraphs (i)(25) through (29), ACF proposes to require that the state title IV-E agency report certain information on adoptive placement preferences, which are requirements in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(a), if the Indian child exited foster care to adoption per § 1355.43(g).

In paragraph (i)(25), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the child exited foster care to adoption per § 1355.43(g). This is a driver question for this section; if the state title IV-E agency indicates “yes,” then the agency must complete the elements in this section; if the state title IV-E agency indicates “no,” then the agency must skip the elements in this section.

In paragraph (i)(26), the state title IV-E agency must indicate which adoptive placements from a list of four were willing to accept placement of the Indian child. Adoption placements preferences are found in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) as follows: A member of the Indian child's extended family; other members of the Indian child's tribe; other Indian families; or a placement that complies with the order of preference for adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).

In paragraph (i)(27), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the placement reported in § 1355.43(h) meets the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed from a list of five response options. The placements preferences are: A member of the Indian child's extended family; other members of the Indian child's tribe; other Indian families; or a placement that complies with the order of preference for adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c); or none.

In paragraph (i)(28), the state title IV-E agency must indicate whether the state court made a finding of good cause, in a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe, if the placement preferences for adoptive placements were not followed. In paragraph (i)(29), the state title IV-E agency must indicate the state court's basis for the finding of good cause, as indicated in the court order, from a list of five response options: Request of the biological parents; request of the Indian child; the unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915; the extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child; or other.

The requirements for adoption placement preferences in ICWA are a key piece of the protections provided under ICWA. Placement preferences serve the policies of protecting the best interests of Indian children and promoting the stability and security of families and Indian tribes by keeping adopted Indian children with their extended families, tribes or communities. These data elements will help provide greater understanding on how best to support Indian children in cases where adoption is the outcome. The data are important to assist in identifying trends or problems that may require enhanced recruitment of potential Indian adoptive homes or relative placements. The information from these data elements will allow ACF to distinguish between ICWA cases in which there was no available ICWA-placement and those cases where an available ICWA-placement was not used. The data will help assess the current status of kinship guardianship placements as well as to help identify a national plan for meeting permanency goals through kinship guardianship. This information will help to identify the scope of resources for training and technical assistance needed for states to recruit and support adoptive families to meet the unique cultural, social, and enrichment activity needs of Indian children. Reporting information on good cause to not follow ICWA adoption placement preferences will help to understand why the ICWA placement preferences are not followed, and will aid in identifying targeted training and resource needs to assist states in improving Indian child outcomes.

Attachment A—Proposed Out-of-Home Care Data File Elements Related to ICWA Category & applicability Element Response options Section citation Identifying an “Indian Child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act Indicate whether the state title IV-E agency researched whether there is a reason to know that the child is an “Indian child” under ICWA: 1355.43(i)(3). These data elements will be reported for all children • Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's biological or adoptive mother Yes.
  • No.
  • The biological or adoptive mother is deceased.
  • • Indicate whether the biological or adoptive mother is a member of an Indian tribe Yes.
  • No.
  • Unknown.
  • • Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's biological or adoptive father Yes.
  • No.
  • The biological or adoptive father is deceased.
  • • Indicate whether the biological or adoptive father is a member of an Indian tribe Yes.
  • No.
  • Unknown.
  • • Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's Indian custodian, if the child has one Yes.
  • No.
  • Child does not have an Indian custodian.
  • • Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child who is the subject of the proceeding Yes.
  • No.
  • • Indicate whether the child is a member of or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe Yes.
  • No.
  • Unknown.
  • • Indicate whether the domicile or residence of the child, parent, or the Indian custodian is known by the agency to be, or is shown to be, on an Indian reservation Yes.
  • No.
  • Application of ICWA • Indicate whether the state title IV-E agency knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child as defined by ICWA Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(4).
    These data elements will be reported for all children • Indicate the date that the state title IV-E agency discovered the information that indicates that the child is or may be an Indian child Date. • Indicate the name(s) of all federally recognized Indian tribe(s) identified that may potentially be the Indian child's tribe(s) Name(s). These data elements will be reported for all children Indicate whether a court order indicates that the court found that ICWA applies Yes, ICWA applies
  • No, ICWA does not apply.
  • No court finding.
  • 1355.43(i)(5).
    • Indicate the date of the court finding Date. • Indicate the name of the Indian tribe(s) that the court found is the Indian child's tribe, if listed on the court order Name(s).
  • No name listed.
  • Transfer to tribal court
  • These data elements and all of those below only apply to Indian children.
  • Indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the Indian child's parent, Indian custodian, or Indian child's tribe requested, orally on the record or in writing, that the state court transfer the case to the tribal court of the Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1911(b), at any point during the report period Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(6).
    If the state court denied the request to transfer the case to tribal court, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates the reason(s) why the case was not transferred to the tribal court Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(7).
    • Either of the parents objected to transferring the case to the tribal court Yes.
  • No.
  • • The tribal court declined the transfer to the tribal court Yes.
  • No.
  • • The state court found good cause not to transfer the case to the tribal court Yes.
  • No.
  • Notification Indicate whether the Indian child's parent or Indian custodian was given proper legal notice more than 10 days prior to the first child custody proceeding in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a) Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(8).
    Indicate whether the Indian child's tribe(s) was given proper legal notice more than 10 days prior to the first child custody proceeding in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a) Yes
  • No.
  • The child's Indian tribe is unknown.
  • Indicate the name(s) of the Indian tribe(s) that were sent notice for a child custody proceeding as required in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1912(a) Name(s) 1355.43(i)(9). If the tribe(s) requested additional information, indicate whether the state title IV-E agency replied with the additional information that the Indian tribe(s) requested Yes
  • No.
  • Does not apply.
  • 1355.43(i)(10).
    Active efforts to prevent removal and reunify with Indian family Indicate the date that the state title IV-E agency began making active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family for the most recent removal reported in § 1355.43(d) of the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) Date 1355.43(i)(11). Indicate whether the court found, in a court order, that the state title IV-E agency made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family for the most recent removal reported in § 1355.43(d) and that these efforts were unsuccessful in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(12).
    Indicate the active efforts that the state title IV-E agency made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) 1355.43(i)(13). • Identify appropriate services to help the parent Yes.
  • No.
  • • Actively assist the parent in obtaining services Yes.
  • No.
  • • Invite representatives of the Indian child's tribe to participate in the proceedings Yes.
  • No.
  • • Complete a comprehensive assessment of the family Yes.
  • No.
  • • Focus on safe reunification as the goal for the Indian child Yes.
  • No.
  • • Consult with extended family members to provide support for the Indian child Yes.
  • No.
  • • Arrange for family interaction in most natural setting safely possible Yes.
  • No.
  • • Monitor progress and participation in services to reunite the Indian family Yes.
  • No.
  • • Consider alternative ways of addressing the needs of the Indian child's parent and extended family if services do not exist or are not available Yes.
  • No.
  • • Support regular visits and trial home visits consistent with ensuring the Indian child's safety Yes.
  • No.
  • • Conduct or cause to be conducted a diligent search for the Indian child's extended family members for assistance and possible placement Yes.
  • No.
  • • Keep siblings together Yes.
  • No.
  • N/A.
  • • Other Yes.
  • No.
  • Removals Indicate whether the court found by clear and convincing evidence, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e) Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(14).
    Indicate whether the court finding indicates that the state court's finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e) Yes.
  • No.
  • Foster care and pre-adoptive placement preferences Indicate which foster care or pre-adoptive placements that meet the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) were available to accept placement 1355.43(i)(15). • A member of the Indian child's extended family Yes.
  • No.
  • • A foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe Yes.
  • No.
  • • An Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority Yes.
  • No.
  • • An institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs Yes.
  • No.
  • • A placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c) Yes.
  • No.
  • For the Indian child's current foster care or pre-adoptive placement as of the end of the report period per § 1355.43(e), indicate whether the placement meets the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed A member of the Indian child's extended family
  • A foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe.
  • 1355.43(i)(16).
    An Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority. An institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs. A placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).
  • None.
  • If the placement preferences for foster care or pre-adoptive placements were not followed, indicate whether the court made a finding of good cause, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(17).
    Indicate the state court's basis for the finding of good cause, as indicated on the court order 1355.43(i)(18). • Request of biological parents Yes.
  • No.
  • • Request of Indian child Yes.
  • No.
  • • The unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915 Yes.
  • No.
  • • The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child Yes.
  • No.
  • • Other Yes.
  • No.
  • Termination of parental rights Indicate whether the termination of parental (or Indian custodian rights was voluntary or involuntary Voluntary
  • Involuntary.
  • 1355.43(i)(19).
    Indicate whether, prior to ordering a termination of parental rights, the state court found beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f) Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(20).
    Indicate whether the court finding, reported for paragraph (i)(20), indicates that the state court's finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f) Yes
  • No.
  • 1344.43(i)(21).
    If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the biological or adoptive mother was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913 Yes
  • No.
  • Does not apply.
  • 1355.43(i)(22).
    If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the biological or adoptive father was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913 Yes
  • No.
  • Does not apply.
  • 1355.43(i)(23).
    If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the Indian custodian was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913 Yes
  • No.
  • Does not apply.
  • 1355.43(i)(24).
    Adoption proceedings Indicate whether the Indian child exited foster care to adoption per § 1355.43(g) Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(25).
    Indicate which adoptive placements that meet the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) were willing to accept placement 1355.43(i)(26). • A member of the Indian child's extended family Yes.
  • No.
  • • Other members of the Indian child's tribe Yes.
  • No.
  • • Other Indian families Yes.
  • No.
  • • A placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c) Yes.
  • No.
  • Indicate whether the placement reported in § 1355.43(h) meets the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed A member of the Indian child's extended family
  • Other members of the Indian child's tribe.
  • 1355.43(i)(27).
  • Other Indian families.
  • A placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c)
  • None
  • If the placement preferences for adoption were not followed, indicate whether the court made a finding of good cause, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe Yes
  • No.
  • 1355.43(i)(28).
    Indicate whether there is a court order that indicates the court's basis for the finding of good cause 1355.43(i)(29). • Request of the biological parents Yes.
  • No.
  • • Request of the Indian child Yes.
  • No.
  • • The unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915 Yes.
  • No.
  • • The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child Yes.
  • No.
  • • Other Yes.
  • No.
  • VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in the E.O. The Department has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. In particular, ACF has determined that a regulation is the best and most cost effective way to implement the statutory mandate for a data collection system regarding children in foster care and those that are adopted and support other statutory obligations to provide oversight of child welfare programs. ACF consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this proposed rule does meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Thus, it was subject to OMB review.

    ACF determined that the costs to title IV-E agencies as a result of this rule will not be significant. Federal reimbursement under title IV-E will be available for a portion of the costs that title IV-E agencies will incur as a result of the revisions proposed in this rule, depending on each agency's cost allocation plan, information system, and other factors.

    Alternatives Considered:

    1. ACF considered not collecting certain ICWA-related data in AFCARS. Not including ICWA-related data elements in AFCARS, or including too few data elements, may exclude Indian children and families from the additional benefit of improving AFCARS data.

    2. ACF considered whether other existing data sets could yield similar information. ACF determined that AFCARS is the only comprehensive case-level data set on the incidence and experiences of children who are in foster care and/or adoption or guardianship with the involvement of the state or tribal title IV-E agency.

    3. Previously, ACF considered whether to permit title IV-E agencies to sample and report information on a representative population of children. Such an alternative is unacceptable given the significant limitations associated with using a sampling approach for collecting data, including data on AI/AN children who are in foster care, adoption, and guardianship programs. Under a sampling approach, ACF would be unable to report reliable data responsive to the Annual Outcomes Report to Congress, the Report to Congress on the Social and Economic Conditions of Native Americans, and Adoption Incentives. Second, when using a sample, small population subgroups (e.g., children who spend very long periods in foster care or children who are adopted or run away) might occur so rarely in the data such that analysis on these subgroups would not be meaningful. Sampling error with respect to AI/AN populations is already a well-established issue affecting the validity and meaningfulness of large national surveys like the American Community Survey. It is a well-established that, historically, quantitative and qualitative data on AI/AN populations, including children, has been incomplete and unreliable resulting in such populations being among the most under-counted populations groups in the United States.

    4. In each of 18 states, there were fewer than 10 Indian children in foster care according to FY 2013 AFCARS data. For states that have few Indian children in foster care, ACF considered alternatives to collecting ICWA-related data through AFCARS, such as providing an exemption from reporting, or an alternative submission process or that would be less burdensome. While ACF recognizes collecting the proposed ICWA-related data may be burdensome for states with few Indian children in foster care, the alternative approaches are not feasible due to:

    • The statutory requirement that AFCARS data be comprehensive. Section 479(c)(3) requires that AFCARS provide “comprehensive national information.” Exempting some states from reporting the proposed ICWA-related data elements is not consistent with this statutory mandate, and would render it difficult to use this data for development of national policies for Indian children.

    • The statutory requirement for assessing penalties on AFCARS data. Section 474(f) of the Act penalizes the title IV-E agency for non-compliance based on the total amount expended by the state for administration of foster care activities. The statute provides for mandatory penalties, therefore, we are not authorized to permit some states to be subject to a penalty and not others. In addition, allowing states an alternate submission process would complicate and/or prevent the assessment of penalties as proposed in the February 9, 2015 NPRM in proposed § 1355.46, including penalties for failure to submit data files free of cross-file errors, missing, invalid, or internally inconsistent data, or tardy transactions for each data element of applicable records.

    • State agencies that elect to have a SACWIS provide some of the proposed ICWA-related data elements as part of the system requirements will already have systems designed to capture some ICWA-related data.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not affect small entities because it is applicable only to state title IV-E agencies.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $146 million. This proposed rule does not impose any mandates on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector that will result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more.

    Congressional Review

    This regulation is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 8.

    Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-58) requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These proposed regulations will not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the law.

    Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 requires that federal agencies consult with state and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with Federalism implications. Consistent with E.O. 13132, the Department specifically solicits comments from state and local government officials on this proposed rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35, as amended) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. Information collection for AFCARS is currently authorized under OMB number 0970-0422. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking contains new information collection requirements in proposed § 1355.43, the out-of-home care data file that the Department has submitted to OMB for its review. This SNPRM proposes to require state title IV-E agencies to collect and report ICWA-related data elements in the AFCARS out-of-home care data file. PRA rules require that ACF estimate the total burden created by this SNPRM regardless of what information is already available.

    Comments to the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM: ACF understands from comments on the February 2015 AFCARS NPRM that National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) and the states felt that our burden estimates were low for determining the costs to implement the proposed data elements in AFCARS NPRM. However, very few states provided estimates on the burden hours or actual costs to implement the AFCARS NPRM. The comments were primarily about technical or programmer costs to modify the information system to extract the proposed data elements. This did not include the work associated with child welfare agency workers gathering information or being trained in data entry. The estimates received to modify a state information system to extract the proposed AFCARS NPRM data elements (approximately 100) ranged from 2,000 hours to 20,000 hours. Although ACF appreciates that these states provided this information on hourly and cost burden estimates, ACF received too few estimates to assist in calculating the state costs for information systems and other burden associated with this SNPRM. Therefore, ACF provides estimates using the best available information.

    Burden Estimate

    ACF estimates the annual reporting and record keeping burden hours of this SNPRM to be 192,285 hours. ACF estimates a one-time burden associated with this SNPRM to be 85,072 hours. The 52 respondents comprise 52 state title IV-E agencies. The following are estimates.

    Collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per year
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total burden hours
    Annual Record Keeping and Reporting Burden 52 2 3,697.79 192,285 One-Time Burden 52 1 1,636 85,072

    In estimating the burden, ACF included both one-time burden estimates and annual burden estimates:

    Annual burden: The annual burden to the state title IV-E agency includes activities such as: Searching data sources and gathering information, entering the information, extracting the information for AFCARS reporting, and transmitting the information to ACF.

    One time burden: The one-time burden for this SNPRM, includes activities to: Develop or modify procedures and systems to collect, validate, and verify the information, adjust existing ways to comply with AFCARS requirements, and train personnel on the new AFCARS requirements of this SNPRM.

    In developing the burden estimate, ACF made several assumptions about the data in state child welfare information systems. First, ACF assumed that state title IV-E agencies may have access to most of the information for proposed data elements. ACF anticipated the information for these data elements are contained in the state title IV-E agency's paper or electronic case files. ACF estimated that some of the data elements would only be in paper case files or narrative fields, thus not readily able to be extracted for AFCARS reporting, and would require revisions to the electronic case file so that the information can be extracted for AFCARS reporting. Some of these data elements concern collecting information on court findings and other activities taking place during court processes.

    ACF proposes for state title IV-E agencies to report information in court orders that the state title IV-E agency would have ready access to or would typically be in the state title IV-E agency's case files. ACF is seeking state feedback as to whether the state agency has these readily available in their agency paper files or electronic files. These are:

    • A court order indicating that the child's parent or Indian custodian or the Indian child's tribe requested orally on the record or in writing that the state court transfer the case to the tribal court of the Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1911(b), and, where applicable, the reason(s) why the case was not transferred.

    • A court order indicating the court found by clear and convincing evidence, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e).

    • A court order indicating that the court made a finding of good cause, and the basis, if the placement preferences for foster care were not followed, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c); and

    • If the placement preferences for adoption were not followed, a court finding of good cause, and the basis, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe.

    Second, in order to determine the number of cases for which state title IV-E agencies will have to report the ICWA-related data elements, ACF estimated the out-of-home care reporting population using the most recent FY 2014 AFCARS data available submitted by state title IV-E agencies: 415,129 children were in foster care on September 30, 2014 and 264,746 children entered foster care during FY 2014. The state title IV-E agency will be required to report approximately 3 data elements for all children who are in the out-of-home care reporting population and approximately 24 data elements on children to whom the ICWA-related data elements apply.

    To estimate the number of children to whom the ICWA-related data elements apply, ACF used as a proxy those children whose race was reported as “American Indian or Alaska Native” in the most recent FY 2014 AFCARS data available. While not every child of this reported race category will be covered under ICWA, it is likely that the state title IV-E agency will have to explore whether these children may be Indian children as defined in ICWA. Thus, 5,960 children who entered foster care during FY 2014 were reported as American Indian or Alaska Native.

    Third, ACF assumed that there will be one-time costs to implement the requirements of this SNPRM and annual costs to collect, input, and report the information. The annual costs involve searching data, gathering the information that meet the requirements of this SNPRM, entering the information, and extracting and submitting the information for AFCARS reporting. The one-time costs mostly involve modifying procedures and systems to collect, validate and verify information, adjusting existing ways to comply with AFCARS; and training personnel on the new AFCARS requirements of this SNPRM.

    Fourth, ACF assumed that the one-time burden is similar to how long it would take to make revisions to a SACWIS to be able to meet the requirements of the SNPRM. Currently, 36 states have an operational SACWIS. ACF understands that 24 states opted to collect at least a minimal amount of ICWA-related information per the SACWIS Assessment Review Guide, but also recognize that most state title IV-E agencies will require some revisions to meet the requirements of this SNPRM. As more states build SACWIS, ACF anticipates it will lead to more efficiency in reporting and less cost and burden to the state agencies.

    Finally, after reviewing the 2014 Bureau of Labor Statistics data to help determine the costs of the SNPRM, ACF assumed that there will be a mix of staff working to meet both the one-time and annual requirements of this SNPRM with the job role of Management Analyst (13-1111) with a mean hourly wage estimate of $43.68 and those with the job role of Social and Community Service Managers (11-9151) with a mean hourly wage estimate of $32.56. Thus, ACF averaged the two wages to come to an average labor rate of $38.12. In order to ensure we took into account overhead costs associated with these labor costs, ACF doubled this rate.

    Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Estimate: ACF estimated the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden by multiplying the time spent on the recordkeeping and reporting activities described below by the number of children in foster care to arrive at the total recordkeeping hours. These estimates represent the work associated with the state title IV-E agency searching data sources and gathering information, entering the information, extracting the information for AFCARS reporting, and transmitting the information to ACF. These estimates are based on our assumptions, described above, on how much of the information proposed in this SNPRM state title IV-E agencies currently have in their electronic or paper case files or information system or have ready access to, while taking into account that some of the elements may require more effort to gather the information if it is not readily accessible.

    • Gathering the information for and entering the ICWA-related data elements that apply to all children who enter foster care on average will take approximately 132,373 annual burden hours. (0.5 hours × 264,746 children who entered foster care = 132,373 annual burden hours for all children in the out-of-home care reporting population)

    • Gathering the information for and entering the ICWA-related data elements that apply to children in foster care who are covered by ICWA, on average will take 59,600 annual burden hours. (10 hours × 5,960 children who enter foster care with a race reported as American Indian or Alaska Native = 59,600 annual burden hours for children in the out-of-home care reporting population who are covered by ICWA). ACF estimated that it would take a state title IV-E agency on average 10 hours annually to gather and input the ICWA-related data elements that apply to children in foster care who are covered by ICWA. ACF estimated this by assuming that a state title IV-E agency would be gathering and inputting information for approximately 14 of the proposed data elements for an average foster care episode, if the child is not transferred and there is no TPR or adoption. In cases where the child is transferred, ACF estimated that the burden would decrease because the agency would have fewer data elements to complete and the burden would increase in cases where there is a TPR and the child is adopted because there would be more data elements that the agency would have to complete.

    • Extracting and submitting the information to ACF for AFCARS reporting on average will take 6 annual burden hours per state title IV-E agency. Nationally, the hour burden for all 52 state title IV-E agencies would be 312 (6 hours × 52 states = 312). ACF took into account the number of data elements proposed in this SNPRM when estimating the reporting burden.

    ACF added the bullets above and estimate the number of annual recordkeeping and reporting burden hours that workers will spend on ICWA-related AFCARS requirements in the out-of-home care reporting population annually will be 192,285 hours (132,373 + 59,600 + 312 = 192,285). Dividing this annual figure by the 52 state title IV-E agencies, ACF arrived at approximately 3,698 average burden hours per respondent per year for the ICWA-related information in the AFCARS out-of-home care data file. (192,285 ÷ 52 title IV-E agencies = 3,697.79 average burden hours per respondent per year.)

    One-Time Burden Estimate: ACF estimated the one-time burden by adding up the time spent on the activities described below and multiplying it by the 52 state title IV-E agencies to arrive at the one-time burden hours. The one-time burden estimates represent the work associated with the activities described below. As stated above, ACF came to these estimates by using average estimates for revising a SACWIS, which is the best information available. It is also important to note that states will have the option of updating their systems in a streamlined manner since ACF plans to issue the final rules for new AFCARS regulations and for child welfare information systems.

    • Modifying procedures and systems (including developing or acquiring technology) to collect, validate, verify, process, and report the information to ACF on average will take approximately 130 burden hours.

    • Adjustments to the existing ways to comply with AFCARS, developing technology and systems to collect and process data on average will take approximately 200 burden hours.

    • The administrative tasks associated with training personnel on the new AFCARS requirements of this SNPRM which include reviewing instructions, including training development and manuals on average will take approximately 30 burden hours.

    • Training personnel on the new AFCARS requirements of this SNPRM on average will take approximately 1,276 burden hours. ACF arrived at this estimate by dividing the number of children in foster care on September 30, 2014 (415,129) by an estimated average caseload of 25 cases per worker to arrive at an estimate of 16,605 workers to be trained. ACF divided this number (16,605) by 52 to account for average workers per state title IV-E agency, and arrived at 319 workers. ACF multiplied the workers (319) by the number of estimated hours to complete training (4 hours) to arrive at 1,276 burden hours to train personnel per state title IV-E agency on the new AFCARS requirements. ACF added the burden hours above (1,636 hours) and multiplied by 52 state title IV-E agencies, which results in a one-time burden of 85,072 hours (1,636 × 52 = 85,072 one-time burden hours).

    Total Burden Cost

    ACF used a total cost and burden hour estimates to provide additional detail on projected average cost for each state title IV-E agency implementing the changes described in this SNPRM. Once the burden hours were determined, ACF developed an estimate of the associated cost for state title IV-E agencies to conduct these activities, as applicable. Based on our assumptions above, ACF used an average labor rate of $38.12 and doubled this rate to account for overhead costs ($76.24). Based on these rates, ACF estimated the cost for one-time burden to be $6,485,889.28 (85,072 one-time hours × $76.24 hourly cost/overhead = $6,485,889.28) and ACF estimated the cost for annual burden to be $14,659,808.40 (192,285 annual hours × $76.24 hourly cost = $14,659,808.40). Dividing these costs by 52 state title IV-E agencies, ACF estimated the average cost per state title IV-E agency to be $124,728.64 one-time and $281,919.39 annually. Federal reimbursement under title IV-E will be available for a portion of the costs that title IV-E agencies will incur as a result of the revisions proposed in this rule, depending on each agency's cost allocation plan, information system, and other factors.

    Hours Average
  • hourly labor rate + overhead
  • Total cost
  • nationwide
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Net average
  • cost per
  • respondent
  • Total One-Time Burden 85,072 $76.24 $6,485,889.28 52 $124,728.64 One-Time. Total Annual recordkeeping and reporting burden 192,285 76.24 14,659,808.40 52 281,919.39 Annually.

    In the above estimates, ACF acknowledges: (1) ACF has used average figures for state title IV-E agencies of very different sizes and of which, some states may have larger populations of tribal children served than other states, (2) these are rough estimates of the burden because state title IV-E agencies have not been required previously to report ICWA-related information in AFCARS, and (3) as described, ACF has limited information to use in making these estimates. ACF welcomes comments on these factors and all others in this section.

    ACF will consider comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in the following areas:

    1. Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluating whether the proposed collection is sufficient to assess and serve the unique needs of AI/AN children under the placement and care of title IV-E agencies;

    3. Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    4. Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    5. Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the proposed regulations. Written comments to OMB for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, either by fax to 202-395-6974 or by email to [email protected] Please mark faxes and emails to the attention of the desk officer for ACF.

    VII. Tribal Consultation Statement

    As we stated in section IV of this SNPRM, we held one Tribal consultation session via a teleconference call on May 1, 2015 and we did not receive suggestions from tribal representatives during the call. A few tribal representatives indicated that they would comment on the data elements through the SNPRM when it is issued.

    We also stated in section IV of this SNPRM that we analyzed comments to the Feb. 2015 AFCARS NPRM that spoke to ICWA-related data elements to help inform this SNPRM. We received 45 comments that spoke to including new data elements in AFCARS related to ICWA; a majority of which were from tribes/tribal organizations. The commenters recommended data elements that provide basic information about the applicability of ICWA for children in out-of-home care, including: Identification of American Indian and Alaskan Native children and their family structure, tribal notification and intervention in state court proceedings, the relationship of the foster parents and other providers to the child, decisions to place a child in out-of-home care (including data on active efforts and continued custody), whether a placement was licensed by an Indian tribe, whether the placement preferences in ICWA were followed, and termination of parental rights (both voluntary and involuntary).

    List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1355

    Adoption and foster care, Child welfare, Grant programs—social programs.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 93.658, Foster Care Maintenance; 93.659, Adoption Assistance; 93.645, Child Welfare Services—State Grants). Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Approved: February 17, 2016. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR part 1355 as proposed to be amended on February 9, 2015 (80 FR 7132), is proposed to be further amended as follows:

    PART 1355—GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 1355 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1302.

    2. Amend § 1355.43 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 1355.43 Out-of-home care data file elements.

    (i) Data elements related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)—(1) Definitions. Unless otherwise specified, the following terms as they appear in this paragraph (i) are defined as follows:

    Child custody proceeding has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(1).

    Extended family member has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(2).

    Indian has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(3).

    Indian child has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(4).

    Indian child's tribe has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(5).

    Indian custodian has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(6).

    Indian organization has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(7).

    Indian tribe has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(8).

    Parent has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(9).

    Reservation has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(10).

    Tribal court has the same meaning as in 25 U.S.C. 1903(12).

    (2) For all children in the out-of-home care reporting population per § 1355.41(a), the state title IV-E agency must complete the data elements in paragraphs (i)(3) through (5) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency responds with “yes” to the data elements in paragraph (i)(4) or (5) of this section, then the agency must complete the remaining applicable paragraphs (i)(6) through (29) of this section.

    (3) Identifying an “Indian Child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act. Indicate whether the state title IV-E agency researched whether there is a reason to know that the child is an Indian child under ICWA in each paragraph (i)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section.

    (i) Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's biological or adoptive mother. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “the biological or adoptive mother is deceased.”

    (ii) Indicate whether the biological or adoptive mother is a member of an Indian tribe. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “unknown.”

    (iii) Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's biological or adoptive father. Indicate “yes,” “no,” or “the biological or adoptive father is deceased.”

    (iv) Indicate whether the biological or adoptive father is a member of an Indian tribe. Indicate “yes,” “no,” or “unknown.”

    (v) Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child's Indian custodian, if the child has one. Indicate “yes,” or “no” or “child does not have an Indian custodian.”

    (vi) Indicate whether the state agency inquired with the child who is the subject of the proceeding. Indicate “yes” or “no.”

    (vii) Indicate whether the child is a member of or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. Indicate “yes,” “no,” or “unknown.”

    (viii) Indicate whether the domicile or residence of the child, parent, or the Indian custodian is known by the agency to be, or is shown to be, on an Indian reservation. Indicate “yes” or “no.”

    (4) Application of ICWA. Indicate whether the state title IV-E agency knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child as defined by ICWA. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” the state title IV-E agency must complete the data elements in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no,” the state title IV-E agency must leave the data elements in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section blank.

    (i) Indicate the date that the state title IV-E agency discovered the information that indicates that the child is or may be an Indian child.

    (ii) Indicate the name(s) of all federally recognized Indian tribe(s) that may potentially be the Indian child's tribe(s).

    (5) Indicate whether a court order indicates that the court found that ICWA applies. Indicate “yes, ICWA applies,” “no, ICWA does not apply,” or “no court finding.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes, ICWA applies,” the state title IV-E agency must complete paragraphs (i)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no, ICWA does not apply,” the state title IV-E agency must complete the data element in paragraph (i)(5)(i) of this section and leave the data element in paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this section blank. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no court finding,” the state title IV-E agency must leave the data elements in paragraphs (i)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section blank.

    (i) Indicate the date of the court finding.

    (ii) Indicate the name of the Indian tribe(s) that the court found is the Indian child's tribe, if listed on the court order. If a name is not listed on the court order, the state title IV-E agency must indicate “no name listed.”

    (6) Transfer to tribal court. Indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the Indian child's parent, Indian custodian, or Indian child's tribe requested, orally on the record or in writing, that the state court transfer the case to the tribal court of the Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1911(b), at any point during the report period. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” then the state title IV-E agency must complete the data element in paragraph (i)(7) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no,” the state title IV-E agency must leave the data element in paragraph (i)(7) of this section blank.

    (7) If the state court denied the request to transfer the case to tribal court, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates the reason(s) why the case was not transferred to the tribal court. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” then the title IV-E agency must indicate whether each reason in each paragraphs (i)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section is in the court order by indicating “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicates “no,” the title IV-E agency must leave the data elements in paragraphs (i)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section blank.

    (i) Either of the parents objected to transferring the case to the tribal court.

    (ii) The tribal court declined the transfer to the tribal court.

    (iii) The state court found good cause not to transfer the case to the tribal court.

    (8) Notification. (i) Indicate whether the Indian child's parent or Indian custodian was given legal notice more than 10 days prior to of the first child custody proceeding in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a). Indicate “yes” or “no.”

    (ii) Indicate whether the Indian child's tribe(s) was given legal notice more than 10 days prior to the first child custody proceeding in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a). Indicate “yes”, “no” or “the child's Indian tribe is unknown.”

    (9) Indicate the name(s) of the Indian tribe(s) that were sent notice for a child custody proceeding as required in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1912(a).

    (10) If the tribe(s) requested additional information, indicate whether the state title IV-E agency replied with the additional information that the Indian tribe(s) requested. If the tribe did not request additional information, indicate “does not apply.” Otherwise, indicate “yes” or “no.”

    (11) Active efforts to prevent removal and reunify with Indian family. Indicate the date that the state title IV-E agency began making active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family for the most recent removal reported in paragraph (d) of this section of the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(d).

    (12) Indicate whether the court found, in a court order, that the state title IV-E agency made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family for the most recent removal reported in paragraph (d) of this section and that these efforts were unsuccessful in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(d). Indicate “yes” or “no.”

    (13) Indicate the active efforts that the state title IV-E agency made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(d). Indicate “yes” or “no” for each paragraph (i)(13)(i) through (xi) and (xiii) of this section. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “N/A” for paragraph (i)(13)(xii) of this section.

    (i) Identify appropriate services to help the parent.

    (ii) Actively assist the parent to obtain services.

    (iii) Invite representatives of the Indian child's tribe to participate in the proceedings.

    (iv) Complete a comprehensive assessment of the family.

    (v) Focus on safe reunification as the goal for the Indian child.

    (vi) Consult with extended family members to provide support for the Indian child.

    (vii) Arrange for family interaction in most natural setting safely possible.

    (viii) Monitor progress and participation in services to reunite the Indian family.

    (ix) Consider alternative ways of addressing the needs of the Indian child's parent and extended family if services do not exist or are not available.

    (x) Support regular visits and trial home visits consistent with ensuring the Indian child's safety.

    (xi) Conduct or cause to be conducted a diligent search for the Indian child's extended family members for assistance and possible placement.

    (xii) Keep siblings together.

    (xiii) Other.

    (14) Removals. Indicate “yes” or “no” for paragraphs (i)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section: (i) Indicate whether the court found by clear and convincing evidence, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e). (ii) Indicate whether the court finding reported for this paragraph (i)(14), indicates that the state court's finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(e).

    (15) Foster care and pre-adoptive placement preferences. Indicate which foster care or pre-adoptive placements that meet the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) were available to accept placement. Indicate in each paragraph (i)(15)(i) through (v) of this section “yes” or “no.”

    (i) A member of the Indian child's extended family.

    (ii) A foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe.

    (iii) An Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority.

    (iv) An institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs.

    (v) A placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).

    (16) For the Indian child's current foster care or pre-adoptive placement as of the end of the report period per paragraph (e) of this section, indicate whether the placement meets the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed. Indicate “a member of the Indian child's extended family,” “a foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe,” “an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority,” “an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child's needs,” “a placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c)” or “none.”

    (17) If the placement preferences for foster care or pre-adoptive placements were not followed, indicate whether the court made a finding of good cause, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(b) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” then the state title IV-E agency must complete the data element in paragraph (i)(18) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no,” then the state title IV-E agency must leave the data element in paragraph (i)(18) of this section blank.

    (18) Indicate the state court's basis for the finding of good cause, as indicated on the court order, by indicating “yes” or “no” in each paragraph (i)(18)(i) through (v) of this section.

    (i) Request of the biological parents.

    (ii) Request of the Indian child.

    (iii) The unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915.

    (iv) The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child.

    (v) Other.

    (19) Termination of parental rights. Indicate whether the termination of parental or Indian custodian rights was voluntary or involuntary. Indicate “voluntary” or “involuntary.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “voluntary”, the state title IV-E agency must leave the data elements in paragraphs (i)(20) and (21) of this section blank. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “involuntary”, the state title IV-E agency must leave the data elements in paragraphs (i)(22) through (24) of this section blank.

    (20) Indicate whether, prior to ordering an involuntary termination of parental rights, the state court found beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court order, that continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f). Indicate “yes” or “no.”

    (21) Indicate whether the court finding reported for paragraph (i)(20) of this section, indicates that the state court's finding was supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(f). Indicate “yes” or “no.”

    (22) If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the biological or adoptive mother was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913. Indicate “yes,” “no,” or “does not apply” if the mother is deceased.

    (23) If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the biological or adoptive father was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “does not apply” if the father is deceased.

    (24) If voluntary, indicate whether there is a court order that indicates that the voluntary consent to termination for the Indian custodian was made in writing and recorded in the presence of a judge in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1913. Indicate “yes,” “no” or “does not apply” if there is no Indian custodian.

    (25) Adoption proceedings. Indicate whether the Indian child exited foster care to adoption per paragraph (g) of this section. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” the state title IV-E agency must complete the data element in paragraphs (i)(26) through (29) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no,” the state title IV-E agency must leave the data element in paragraphs (i)(26) through (29) of this section blank.

    (26) Indicate which adoptive placements that meet the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) were willing to accept placement. Indicate in each paragraphs (i)(26)(i) through (iv) of this section “yes” or “no.”

    (i) A member of the Indian child's extended family.

    (ii) Other members of the Indian child's tribe.

    (iii) Other Indian families.

    (iv) A placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c).

    (27) Indicate whether the placement reported in paragraph (h) of this section meets the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) by indicating with whom the Indian child is placed. Indicate “a member of the Indian child's extended family,” “other members of the Indian child's tribe,” “other Indian families,” “a placement that complies with the order of preference for foster care or pre-adoptive placements established by an Indian child's tribe, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1915(c),” or “none.”

    (28) If the placement preferences for adoption were not followed, indicate whether the court made a finding of good cause, on a court order, to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences of ICWA in 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) or the placement preferences of the Indian child's tribe. Indicate “yes” or “no.” If the state title IV-E agency indicated “yes,” then the state title IV-E agency must complete the data element in paragraph (i)(29) of this section. If the state title IV-E agency indicated “no,” then the state title IV-E agency must leave the data element in paragraph (i)(29) of this section blank.

    (29) Indicate whether there is a court order that indicates the court's basis for the finding of good cause, by indicating “yes” or “no” in each paragraph (i)(29)(i) through (v) of this section.

    (i) Request of the biological parents.

    (ii) Request of the Indian child.

    (iii) The unavailability of a suitable placement that meets the placement preferences in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. 1915.

    (iv) The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the Indian child.

    (v) Other.

    [FR Doc. 2016-07920 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039; 4500030115] RIN 1018-AY39 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Scarlet Macaw AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Revised proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), notify the public that, based on new information, we are making changes to our proposed rule of July 6, 2012, to list as endangered the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (Ara macao cyanoptera) and the northern distinct vertebrate population segment (DPS) of the southern subspecies (A. m. macao). We are also reopening the comment period. Comments previously submitted will be considered and do not need to be resubmitted. However, we invite comments on the new information presented in this document relevant to our consideration of the changes described below. We encourage those who may have commented previously to submit additional comments, if appropriate, in light of this new information.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40222) is reopened. We will accept comments received on or before June 6, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039.

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039]; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.

    We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS:ES, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA or Act), based on new information and information overlooked in the development of our July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40222), proposed rule (“2012 Proposed Rule”), we are: (1) Revising the location of what we consider to be the boundary between the two subspecies of A. macao; (2) providing additional information on the species in northeast Costa Rica, southeast Nicaragua, and Panama, and reevaluating the status of A. m. cyanoptera; (3) providing additional information on the northern DPS of A. m. macao, reevaluating the status of this DPS, and revising our proposed listing of this DPS from endangered status to threatened status; (4) adding a proposal to treat the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera) as threatened based on similarity of appearance to A. m. cyanoptera and to the northern DPS of A. m. macao; and (5) adding a proposed rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act to define the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to scarlet macaws listed as threatened.

    Public Comments

    Our intent is to use the best available scientific and commercial data as the foundation for all endangered and threatened species classification decisions. Further, we want any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as effective as possible. Therefore, we invite range countries, tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments regarding our 2012 Proposed Rule and the changes we present in this revised proposed rule. Comments should be as specific as possible.

    Before issuing a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will take into account all comments and any additional information we receive. Comments previously submitted will be considered and do not need to be resubmitted. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from our proposal. For example, new information provided may lead to a threatened status instead of an endangered status, an endangered status instead of a threatened status, or we may determine the entity may not warrant listing based on new information. Additionally, new information may lead to revisions to the proposed 4(d) rule and/or our proposed similarity of appearance finding. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the administrative record.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning our changes to the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Comments must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date specified in DATES.

    We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Information Requested

    We intend that any final actions resulting from this revised proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested parties concerning this revised proposed rule. We particularly seek clarifying information concerning:

    (1) New information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and trends, diet, and population abundance and trends specific to the northern DPS of A. m. macao and the northwest Columbia population.

    (2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land uses on the distribution and abundance of this species in northwest Colombia.

    (3) Additional information pertaining to the northwest Colombia population, including any information on whether this population constitutes an SPR of the northern DPS of A. m. macao.

    Additionally, we invite range countries, tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments regarding the revisions to our 2012 Proposed Rule as follows:

    (4) Revision of the status of the northern DPS of Ara macao macao from endangered to threatened;

    (5) Addition of the proposed similarity of appearance listing of the for the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera);

    (6) Our 2012 Proposed Rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act that define the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to scarlet macaws listed as threatened and, unless a permit for otherwise prohibited activities is obtained under 50 CFR 17.52, to scarlet macaw subspecies crosses and the southern DPS of A. m. macao treated as threatened under the similarity-of-appearance provisions of the Act.

    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

    Comment Period Extension

    During the public comment period for our 2012 Proposed Rule, we received several requests from the public for extension of the comment period. For this reason, and because we are amending our 2012 Proposed Rule, we are reopening the comment period on this proposed rule for 60 days.

    Requests for Separate Listing of Captive Macaws

    During the public comment period, several commenters requested that the Service list the captive populations of the scarlet macaw in the United States by either (1) listing them as a distinct population segment (DPS), or (2) assigning them a separate listing status. In similar situations involving the agency's response to petitions to list all chimpanzees as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA) (78 FR 35201, June 12, 2013) and to delist U.S. Captive Populations of the Scimitar-horned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax (78 FR 33790, June 5, 2013), we have considered the appropriateness of assigning captive-held animals a separate legal status from their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including through designation as a DPS. For the same reasons stated in those previous actions, we find that it would not be appropriate to differentiate the legal status of captive-held animals of scarlet macaw from those in the wild. We find that the ESA does not allow for captive-held animals to be assigned separate legal status from their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including through designation as a DPS. In analyzing threats to a species, we focus our analyses on threats acting upon wild specimens, generally those within the native range of the species, because the goal of the Act is survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. For more information, see our 12-month findings on a petition to delist three antelope species (78 FR 33790; June 5, 2013) and a petition to list chimpanzees (78 FR 35201; June 12, 2013).

    Proposed Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act

    During the public comment period of the 2012 Proposed Rule, several commenters requested we propose a rule under section 4(d) of the Act addressing interstate commerce of scarlet macaws. See Proposed 4(d) Rule below.

    Previous Federal Actions

    On July 6, 2012, we published in the Federal Register a combined 12-month finding and proposed rule on a petition to list the scarlet macaw as threatened or endangered under the Act (77 FR 40222). In that proposed rule, we proposed listing the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw, Ara macao cyanoptera, found in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, as endangered. We identified two DPSs of the southern subspecies: the northern DPS of A. m. macao, found in Costa Rica, Panama, and northern Columbia, and the southern DPS of A. m. macao, found in southern Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guyana, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. We proposed listing the northern DPS of A. m. macao as endangered, and determined that listing the southern DPS of A. m. macao as endangered or threatened was not warranted. The 2012 Proposed Rule had a 60-day comment period, ending September 4, 2012. We received no requests for a public hearing on the 2012 Proposed Rule; therefore, no public hearings were held.

    Substantive Changes to the Proposed Rule

    Based on new information, some received from peer reviewers, we are proposing to make five substantive changes to our 2012 Proposed Rule. Specifically, we are: (1) Revising the location of what we consider to be the boundary between the northern subspecies, A. m. cyanoptera, and the northern DPS of the southern subspecies, A. m. macao; (2) providing additional information on A. m. cyanoptera in northeast Costa Rica, southeast Nicaragua, and Panama, and reevaluating the status of the subspecies; (3) providing additional information on the northern DPS of A. m. macao, reevaluating the status of this DPS, and revising our proposed listing of this DPS from endangered status to threatened status; (4) adding a proposal to treat the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened based on similarity of appearance to A. m. cyanoptera and to the northern DPS of A. m. macao; and (5) adding a proposal under section 4(d) of the Act to define activities that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of scarlet macaws listed as threatened and crosses of the two scarlet macaw subspecies. See Figure 1, below, for a visual representation of these revisions. In this document, we focus our discussion on information we received that could potentially change our status determination for one or more of the entities evaluated in our proposed rule. For additional information on the biology and status of scarlet macaws, see our July 6, 2012, 12-month finding and proposed rule (77 FR 40222). In our final rule, we will address other comments and information, such as information we received that supports or clarifies information contained in our 2012 Proposed Rule.

    EP07AP16.039 1. Consideration of Scarlet Macaws in the Pet Trade

    In analyzing the status of the scarlet macaw, we consider to what extent, if any, captive individuals contribute to the viability of the species within its native range in the wild. Many scarlet macaws are held as pets or captive bred for the pet trade. It has been suggested that scarlet macaws captive-bred for the pet trade contribute to the conservation of the species in the wild by reducing demand on wild populations for pets and, therefore, the number of individuals poached from the wild (Fischer 2004, entire). However, the effect of legal wildlife trade on market demand and wild populations is a complex phenomenon influenced by a variety of factors (Bulte and Damania 2005, entire; Fischer 2004, entire) and we are not aware of any evidence indicating that scarlet macaws captive-bred for the pet trade currently benefit wild populations.

    It has also been suggested that pet scarlet macaws and scarlet macaws captive-bred for the pet trade provide a safety net for the species by potentially providing a source of birds for reintroduction to the wild. However, pet scarlet macaws are poor candidates for re-introduction programs because those bred for the pet trade are bred with little regard for genetics and include an unknown number of subspecies crosses (Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75), pets socialized with humans fail to act appropriately with wild individuals when released, and individuals held as pets may pose a disease risk to wild populations (Brightsmith et al 2005, p. 471). We are not aware of any evidence indicating that release of pet or pet-trade scarlet macaws benefit wild populations. For additional information regarding our evaluation of reintroduction efforts, see Reintroduction Efforts (under Additional Information on Subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and Additional Information on the Northern DPS of A. m. macao, below).

    As indicated above, we are not aware of any information indicating that scarlet macaws held as pets or captive-bred for the pet trade contribute to the conservation of the species in the wild. Therefore, we do not consider them further in our assessment of species status, except when assigning status to subspecies crosses (see 7. Adding a proposal to treat the Southern DPS of A. m. macao and Interspecific Crosses as Threatened Based on Similarity of Appearance).

    2. Revising the Boundary Between Subspecies and Reaffirming DPSs Revising the Boundary Between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we considered the boundary of the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao to be the general border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, based on information from Wiedenfeld (1994, entire) and Schmidt and Amato (2008, pp. 135-138). Brightsmith (2012, http://www.regulations.gov: Docket number FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039 #0066) provided additional information on scarlet macaws in northeast Costa Rica, but stated that it was unknown whether these birds belong to the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera or A. m. macao. However, Schmidt (2013, entire) provides new range-wide genetic information on the species. Consequently, we reexamined information on the distribution of the two scarlet macaw subspecies.

    As indicated in our proposed rule, morphological evidence presented by Wiedenfeld (1994, entire) suggests southern Nicaragua and northern Costa Rica represent a transition zone between scarlet macaw subspecies. However, according to Schmidt (2013, p. 52), distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes shows a general pattern of geographic segregation rather than co-occurrence; cyanoptera and macao lineages segregate at the central highlands of Costa Rica and patterns within the mitochondrial data argue against hybridization between the subspecies. Based on an evaluation of the specimens analyzed by Wiedenfeld, Schmidt (2013, pp. 55-56) indicates that although Wiedenfeld observed a cline in morphological traits across scarlet macaw populations in lower Central America, limited and potentially biased sampling may have exaggerated the degree of phenotypic differentiation Wiedenfeld observed.

    In addition to a pattern of geographic separation on the mainland, Schmidt (2013, pp. 69-73) found that genetic results from Isla Coiba (off the Pacific coast of Panama) are inconsistent with the broader phylogeographic patterns of diversity in the species. Four of five specimens from Isla Coiba carry a mitochondrial DNA haplotype characteristic of A. m. cyanoptera, whereas only one carries the expected haplogroup characteristic of A. m. macao. Schmidt discusses possible reasons for this inconsistency including the possibility that the origin of the four specimens were mislabeled or that Isla Coiba represents a biogeographic anomaly. According to Schmidt, one of the aberrant cyanoptera specimens (collected by Witmore) should be considered reliable and Schmidt's genetic results suggest the other three aberrant cyanoptera specimens (collected by Batty) were collected from the same location as the Witmore specimen. Based on an assessment by Olson (2008, in Schmidt 2013, pp. 71-72) of the collection trips made by Batty in the Veragua Archipelago, Schmidt concludes that the specimen carrying the A. macao macao haplotype likely originated on mainland Panama. Thus, Schmidt's results suggest that Isla Coiba represents a biogeographic anomaly, i.e. that scarlet macaws on the island carry a cyanoptera haplotype rather than the expected macao haplotype.

    Schmidt (2013) represents the only spatial analysis of scarlet macaw genetic variation across the historical geographic range of the species, and we consider Schmidt to be the best available information on subspecies range. Based on the results of Schmidt, the mainland Central America boundary between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao, is the central mountain range of Costa Rica, with A. m. cyanoptera found on the Atlantic (eastern) slope of the country and A. m. macao on the Pacific (western) slope. In addition, scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba are likely to be the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera. Therefore, in the absence of new information indicating otherwise, for the purposes of this rule, we now consider scarlet macaws in Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, the eastern (Caribbean) slope of Costa Rica, and Isla Coiba, Panama to be A. m. cyanoptera. Consequently, we consider new information provided on scarlet macaws in northeast Costa Rica and on Isla Coiba to pertain to the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera. Consistent with the mainland boundary revision, we consider birds on the western slope of Costa Rica and southward through the remainder of the species' range to be A. m. macao.

    In sum, in this revised proposed rule, we revise what we consider to be the boundary between the two subspecies of scarlet macaw, from the previously proposed boundary in the general border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, to the revised boundary of the central highlands of Costa Rica (See Figure 2, below, for a visual representation of the revised proposed boundary between the two subspecies), with an anomalous population of A. m. cyanoptera on Isla Coiba.

    EP07AP16.040 Reaffirming A. m. macao DPSs

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that listing the whole southern subspecies, A. m. macao, was not warranted under the ESA. As a result of this finding, we then considered whether any population segment within the subspecies constituted a DPS based on our 1996 DPS policy (see 61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996). In our proposed rule, we determined that two population segments of A. m. macao met our definitions of a DPS (See Northern DPS of A. m. macao: Distinct Population Segment, and Southern DPS of A. m. macao: Distinct Population Segment, below): A. m. macao north and west of the Andes (scarlet macaws in Costa Rica, Panama, and northwest Colombia), and A. m. macao south and east of the Andes (scarlet macaws in southeast Colombia and the remainder of the species' range in South America). During the public comment period, we received no additional information regarding our conclusion that the Andes represented the boundary between the two population segments or our conclusions that they were valid DPSs based on our DPS policy. Further, the results of Schmidt (2013, pp. 61-62) reaffirm genetic segregation of the two DPSs at the Andes. Therefore, the boundary between the two A. m. macao DPSs, and the range of the southern DPS, remains unchanged from that described in our 2012 Proposed Rule (See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the border between the northern and southern DPS of A. m. macao).

    In this revised proposed rule, we reaffirm our previous DPS determinations. Although the area considered to be the northern DPS of A. m. macao has changed slightly due to the exclusion of northeast Costa Rica and Isla Coiba (Panama) from the DPS, on re-examination of our July 6, 2012 DPS analysis, we conclude that our previous analysis remains valid despite the slight boundary change because (1) both DPSs are discrete as a result of genetic and geographic separation at the Andes, and (2) both DPSs are also significant, because the loss of either would result in a significant gap in the subspecies' range as described in the DPS analysis in our proposed rule. Therefore, both are valid DPSs based on our DPS policy.

    3. Additional Information on Subspecies A. m. cyanoptera Eastern Costa Rica-Nicaragua Border

    We received additional information from a peer reviewer and obtained additional information from literature on scarlet macaws in the eastern border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The eastern border between the two countries follows the Rio San Juan (San Juan River), which separates southeast Nicaragua and northeast Costa Rica. Below we summarize additional information on scarlet macaws in this region.

    Distribution and Trend

    Anecdotal evidence on scarlet macaws in northeast Costa Rica obtained during several years of research on great green macaws (Ara ambigua) indicates that scarlet macaws in this region are increasing in number (Monge et al. 2012, p. 6, citing Chassot and Monge 2004, and Penard et al. in prep; Brightsmith 2012, http://www.regulations.gov: Docket number FWS-R9-ES-012-0039 #0066). In 2004, Chassot and Monge (2004, pp. 12-13) reported several groups of scarlet macaws in the Rio San Carlos area close to the eastern border with Nicaragua, in what is now designated as Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre mixto Maquenque). These included three groups numbering 18, 12, and 8 individuals. One of these groups was observed flying from Nicaragua over the Rio San Juan into Costa Rica, indicating the population's range includes forest on both sides of the border. According to Chassot and Monge (2004, pp. 12-13), many observations of scarlet macaws had been made during previous years of research on the great green macaw in this region, but never of as large a number of individuals.

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we reported an estimate of 48-54 scarlet macaws in Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Costa Rica based on McReynolds (2011 in litt.) citing Penard et al. (2008). However, according to a peer reviewer, this estimate is incorrect. The peer reviewer states that, as a result of the study's methodology, a population estimate cannot be obtained from the data. The peer reviewer indicates that, during the study in question, researchers detected 30 groups of scarlet macaws and only 12 groups of great green macaws in 733 kilometers (km) (455 miles) of transects, with as many as 16 different individual scarlet macaws seen on a single transect. The peer reviewer suggests that, given that transect studies are poor at detecting rare species and A. macao detections outnumbered those of A. ambigua in the heart of the latter species' Costa Rican range, the population of A. macao in this region may number well over 100 birds. The peer reviewer also states that multiple groups of three or four, likely representing adults with juveniles, were detected. Finally, the peer reviewer indicates that the species has recently expanded its range southward to La Selva Biological Station (approximately 35-40 km (15-18 miles) south of the Rio San Juan). According to the peer reviewer, the species was absent from the Station since it was established in the 1960s (D. McClearn and others as reported to Brightsmith, in Brightsmith 2012, http://www.regulations.gov: Docket number FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039 #0066), but has been observed breeding on adjacent land since the mid-2000s.

    During the 2009 macaw breeding season, Monge et al. (2012, entire) conducted an intensive search for scarlet macaw nests in northeast Costa Rica and southeast Nicaragua as part of a larger study to quantify and characterize nests of both scarlet macaw and great green macaw. Monge et al. (2012, p. 9) found 6 scarlet macaw nests (5 in Costa Rica, 1 in Nicaragua).

    Threats

    Information pertaining to the scarlet macaw in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine if that factor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.

    As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, one of the main threats to neotropical parrot species is loss of forest habitat. In northeast Costa Rica, Landsat TM satellite images from 1987, 1998, and 2005 showed a fragmented landscape with remnants of natural ecosystems. The annual rate of total deforestation was 0.88 percent for the 1987-1998 period and 0.73 percent for the 1998-2005 period, even considering recovery of secondary forest (Chassot et al. 2010, p. 37); this equates to a 15 percent decrease in total forest habitat from 1987 to 2005. More recently, Fagan et al. (2013, unpaginated) tracked agricultural expansion from 1986 to 2011 in the region and found a small net gain in forest cover overall after Costa Rica enacted a ban on forest clearing in 1996. However, scarlet macaws require substantial nesting cavities for reproduction; these types of cavities are most often located in older, larger trees which are found mostly in mature forested habitats. The authors found that the rate of mature forest loss decreased from 2.2 percent pre-ban to 1.2 percent post-ban. Although the ban seems to have successfully contributed towards reducing the loss of mature forest, the expansion of cropland into areas outside of mature forest, specifically into pastures and secondary forests, have decreased the reforestation rates. Ultimately, this reduces the total amount of forest habitat available to the species (Fagan et al. 2013, unpaginated).

    Deforestation is also ongoing in southeast Nicaragua. Southeast Nicaragua comprises the IMBR and its buffer zone. The reserve covers 306,980 ha (758,560 acres) (Chassot & Monge 2012, p. 63) and is one of Nicaragua's best preserved forested areas (Ravnborg et al. 2006, p. 2). However, the reserve is threatened by the growing human population in or around the reserve, a result of the continuous arrival of families from other parts of the country into the region in search of cheap land (Ravnborg 2010, pp. 12-13; Ravnborg et al. 2006, pp. 4-5). Ravnborg (2010, p. 10) reports that between 1998 and 2005 the population increased more than 100 percent (from 9,717 to 19,864 individuals) in the municipality of El Castillo, which is composed entirely of IMBR buffer zone and core area. According to Fundacion del Rio and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2011, p. 12), the municipality has an annual population growth rate of 3.9 percent. The expansion of African palm plantations, pasture lands, human settlements, and logging have contributed to an estimated 60 percent deforestation of the buffer zones surrounding IMBP and these activities are expanding in the reserve (Fundacion del Rio & IUCN 2011, pp. 7-8; Ravnborg 2010, pp. 12-13; Nygren 2010, pp. 193-194; Ravnborg et al. 2006, p. 2). Thus, despite the existence of this protected area, deforestation continues to occur and is a serious threat to biodiversity in this region (Fundacion del Rio 2012a, pp. 2-3; Fundacion del Rio 2012b, pp. 2-3; Fundacion del Rio & IUCN 2011, pp. 34, 37, 73-74; Chassot et al. 2006, p. 84).

    Forest conservation efforts are ongoing in the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border region, particularly within Costa Rica's 60,000-hectare (148,263-ac) San Juan-La Selva Biological Corridor (Chassot & Monge 2012, entire). Although these efforts have resulted in lower deforestation rates within the Corridor (Chassot & Monge 2012, p. 67, citing Chassot et al. 2010a), both primary and regrowth forest within the Corridor and within the larger border region of northeast Costa Rica and southeast Nicaragua continue to be threatened by timber extraction, and agricultural expansion (Fagan et al. 2013, unpaginated; Chassot & Monge 2012, p. 63; Chassot & Monge 2011, p. 1; Chassot et al. 2009, p. 9).

    As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, another main threat to neotropical parrot species, in general, is capture for the pet trade. Little information exists on the level of poaching of scarlet macaws in this region. However, poaching is recognized as a significant threat to the species in Nicaragua (77 FR 40235, July 6, 2012). In Nicaragua, capture of parrots for the pet trade is described as common, with scarlet macaws one of the most preferred species (77 FR 40235, July 6, 2012), and scarlet macaws are identified as one of the species most affected by illegal trafficking along the Rio San Juan (Castellón 2008, p. 27). In Costa Rica, poaching is known to occur at both of the other two populations in the country and is believed to be occurring at an unsustainable level in the Área de Conservación del Pacífico Central (Central Pacific Conservation Area (ACOPAC)) (77 FR 40235-40236, July 6, 2012). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that poaching of scarlet macaws occurs in the population on the eastern border between these two countries, though the extent is unknown.

    Isla Coiba

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined ongoing threats to the Isla Coiba, Panama population to be deforestation, poaching, and small population size in combination with other threats. We were not aware of any regulatory mechanisms addressing these threats; therefore, we concluded that the existing regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to protect the species. Based on comments from a peer reviewer, we obtained additional information on this population from additional experts and literature sources. Below we summarize this information.

    Distribution and Trend

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that there were an estimated 100 scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba (Keller and Schmitt 2008). This estimate is based upon information obtained by Keller and Schmitt during discussions with biologists that worked on Coiba (Keller 2012, in litt.). McReynolds estimated fewer than 200 scarlet macaws in Panama (77 FR 40227, July 6, 2012), with most of these on Isla Coiba. Angehr (2012, in litt.), in response to our inquiry regarding the reasonableness of Coiba estimates, indicates that 100-200 is a reasonable estimate for the number of scarlet macaws on Coiba. He further states that there is no reason to believe the population is currently declining.

    Threats

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that some level of deforestation was occurring on Isla Coiba as a result of trampling and erosion caused by feral cattle (77 FR 40231, July 6, 2012). New information indicates that cattle on Coiba may be inhibiting the regrowth of former pasture to secondary forest, but are probably not having a significant impact on the larger forest trees on which A. m. macao depends (Angehr 2012, in litt.). Therefore, it is unlikely that cattle are currently a threat to the forest resources on which scarlet macaws depend on the island. As indicated in our proposed rule, cattle on Coiba are increasing in number and causing at least some level of deforestation and soil erosion via trampling. As a result, in the absence of natural or anthropogenic control measures, it is possible that, with increasing numbers, the feral cattle on Isla Coiba may move beyond current pasture areas into established forest and become a threat to scarlet macaw habitat at some time in the future. However, we are unaware of any information that indicates whether or when, and to what extent, such an outcome might occur.

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection was inscribed on the World Heritage List as of 2005. In the 2014 Mission Report by the World Heritage Committee and IUCN, the Committee makes note to acknowledge that the Country of Panama has a strategy and is making progress in the removal of livestock from the property. The report indicates that the country has made a commitment to have all livestock removed by the end of 2014 (Douvere & Herrera 2014, unpaginated). However, we are not aware of any information indicating that the removal of cattle has occurred.

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that poaching likely occurs at some level in Panama and that, because the current population is extremely small and isolated, even low levels of poaching would likely have a negative effect on the species in Panama. According to Angehr (2012) and Keller (2012), Panama's Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (National Environmental Authority) maintains a ranger station on the north end of the island, but patrols elsewhere on the island are probably limited. Keller (2012) indicates that A. macao primarily occurs on the south end of the island and that poaching “is a strong possibility.” However, Angehr (2012) indicates that, while macaws may occasionally be illegally captured on the island, he is not aware that such take is currently a major threat.

    Reintroduction Efforts

    Additional information indicates that a recent program in Mexico is working to establish a viable population of A. m. cyanoptera for recovery purposes in Palenque, Mexico, by releasing captive-bred scarlet macaws into the wild (Estrada 2014, entire). Releases of captive scarlet macaws could potentially aid in recolonization of the macaw population's original range, to the extent that the habitat within that range remains suitable. Conversely, releases of captive scarlet macaws could potentially pose a threat to wild populations by exposing wild birds to diseases for which wild populations have no resistance, invoking behavioral changes in wild macaws that negatively affect their survival, or compromising the genetic integrity of wild populations (Dear et al. 2010, p. 20; Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75; also see IUCN 2013, pp. 15-17). In response to an increasing number of reintroduction projects involving various species worldwide, the IUCN Species Survival Commission published guidelines for reintroductions to help ensure that reintroduction efforts achieve intended conservation benefits and do not cause adverse side-effects of greater impact (IUCN/SSC 2013, entire; IUCN/SSC 1998, entire). Additionally, White et al. (2012, entire) make recommendations specific to parrot reintroductions. According to Estrada (2014, p. 345), the program in Palenque, Mexico was designed to align as closely as possible to the IUCN guidelines and the recommendations made by White et al. So far, the program shows promise for establishing a viable population of A. m. cyanoptera—96 scarlet macaws were released between April 2013 and June 2014 with a 91% survival rate as of May 2015. In addition, 9 nesting events and successful use of wild foods by released birds have been observed. However, while this program shows promise for reintroduction efforts towards the establishment of viable populations in the future, it is currently uncertain as to whether this captive-release program has resulted in conservation benefits to the species at present (IUCN/SSC 2013, entire; IUCN/SSC 1998, entire).

    4. Reevaluation of Status of A. m. cyanoptera

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that A. m. cyanoptera is in danger of extinction based on threats to the subspecies in Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and Nicaragua. We indicated that A. m. cyanoptera occurs in only a few small, isolated populations, and that deforestation and forest degradation, capture for the pet trade, and small population size in combination with the cumulative effects of other threats pose significant threats to A. m. cyanoptera throughout the subspecies' range in these countries such that A. m. cyanoptera is in danger of extinction. We determined that the existing regulatory mechanisms were not adequate to remove or reduce these threats. In the 2012 Proposed Rule, we identified four primary populations in this region, one each in southeast Mexico, northern Guatemala, and southwest Belize (hereafter collectively referred to as the Maya Forest region), and one in the Mosquitia region of Honduras and Nicaragua. As a result of new information we received and obtained on scarlet macaws in the eastern border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and our subsequent revision of the border between the two subspecies of scarlet macaw such that we now consider the birds in this border region and on Isla Coiba to be A. m. cyanoptera, we now reevaluate the status of A. m. cyanoptera.

    Threats acting on A. m. cyanoptera throughout most of the subspecies' range (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, and Nicaragua) are severe and immediate (77 FR 40229-40242, July 6, 2012). While anecdotal observations suggest the population in the eastern border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua has increased in recent years and the population on Isla Coiba is currently stable, both populations appear to be isolated and the regions in which they occur represent an extremely small fraction of the subspecies' current range. In addition, deforestation in the region in which the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border population occurs is ongoing. Although scarlet macaws are tolerant of some level of habitat fragmentation or modification, provided sufficient large trees remain for nesting and feeding requirements, several studies indicate the species occurs in disturbed or secondary forest at lower densities (for a summary of these studies, see 77 FR 40224, 40225, July 6, 2012). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the extent of increase in the population in this region will likely be limited due to past and ongoing deforestation in the region. Further, while the population on Isla Coiba is not currently being negatively impacted by loss of habitat and may or may not be negatively impacted by poaching, the population is very small and isolated (Ridgely 1981, p. 253; McReynolds 2011, in litt.). As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, small, isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction due to a variety of factors, including loss of genetic variability, inbreeding depression, and demographic and environmental stochasticity (77 FR 40239-40240, July 6, 2012; Gilpin & Soule 1986, entire).

    Subspecies estimates for each of the A. m. cyanoptera populations are included in Table 1.

    Table 1—Ara Macao Cyanoptera Population Estimates Population range Population name Population
  • estimates
  • Literature cited
    Southeast Mexico Usamacinto-Southeast Mexico < 200 breeding pairs Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 96-97; Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 52-53. Guatemala Northern Peten 150-250 McNab 2008, p. 7; Wildlife Conservation Society Guatemala 2005, in McReynolds 2011, in litt.; Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 52-53. Belize Chiquibul 60-219 McReynolds 2011, in litt.; Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 52-53; Schmidt and Amato 2008, p. 137. Eastern Honduras, Northeastern Nicaragua Mosquitia Honduras: 1,000-1,500; Nicaragua: 100-700 Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 101-102; Lezama 2010, in McReynolds 2011, in litt.; Feria and de los Monteros 2007, in McReynolds 2011, in litt. Southeast Nicaragua Border and Northeast Costa Rica Rio San Juan (San Juan-La Selva/San Juan-El Castillo) possibly >100 Brightsmith 2012, in litt. Isla Coiba, Panama Coiba 100-200 Keller 2012, in litt.; Angehr 2012, in litt.; McReynolds 2011, in litt.
    Finding for the Northern Subspecies A. m. cyanoptera

    As discussed in our 2012 Proposed Rule, we conclude that the low numbers of this subspecies throughout its range, the extreme fragmentation of its habitat and population throughout its range, and the substantial threats acting on this subspecies throughout its range place this subspecies in danger of extinction. Therefore, we reaffirm our July 6, 2012, finding (77 FR 40222) that A. m. cyanoptera is in danger of extinction in its entirety.

    5. Additional Information on the Northern DPS of A. m. macao

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined the northern DPS of A. m. macao to be in danger of extinction (endangered). We based our determination of the status of this DPS on the status of the birds in Panama and Costa Rica due to the lack of information on the species in northwest Colombia. We determined ongoing threats to what we then considered the three remaining known populations of A. m. macao within the DPS (those at ACOPAC, Costa Rica; Area de Conservación de Osa (Osa Conservation Area) (ACOSA), Costa Rica; and Isla Coiba, Panama) to be poaching, and small population size in combination with other threats (ACOPAC, ACOSA, and Isla Coiba). We determined that the existing regulatory mechanisms were not adequate to remove or reduce these threats. We also determined deforestation to be a threat to the species on Isla Coiba, Panama. We received two peer reviews of our proposal. Although one peer reviewer agreed with our determination, the other questioned our determination to list the northern DPS of A. m. macao as endangered, and also provided additional information on the species. We also obtained additional information on scarlet macaw status and threats in this DPS from additional experts and literature sources. As indicated above, based on new information, we revised the area of this DPS such that scarlet macaws in the Isla Coiba population of Panama are no longer considered part of this DPS. Below we summarize the additional information on what we now consider the northern DPS of A. m. macao, as explained in Revising the Border Between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao, above.

    Central Pacific Costa Rica

    The Central Pacific Costa Rica (ACOPAC) population numbers approximately 450 birds. According to a peer reviewer, the population at ACOPAC has been variably increasing and declining but is not in drastic decline according to the work by Vaughan et al. (2005). As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, Vaughan (2005, p. 127) describes an increase in the previously declining ACOPAC population after implementation of intensive anti-poaching efforts in 1995 and 1996, but also indicates that neither these efforts nor the increasing trend of the macaw population was sustained. Rather, counts of macaws remained almost constant from 1996 to 2003. As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, poaching of wildlife is reported to occur in the area and scarlet macaws are susceptible to overharvest due to their demographic traits and naturally low rate of reproduction (77 FR 40235-40236, July 6, 2012). However, Vaughan indicates that the population was stable even with the level of poaching during that time. As a result, we specifically request information on the current trend of the ACOPAC scarlet macaw population.

    South Pacific Costa Rica

    We received two pieces of anecdotal information on the South Pacific Costa Rica (ACOSA) scarlet macaw population. One peer reviewer states that land owners along the south Pacific coast have informed him that scarlet macaws are being seen more commonly north of the Osa Peninsula, and it seems as though the species may be spreading north through this region. In addition, one commenter states that dozens can be seen on a daily basis on his property at the north end of the Gulfo Dulce, where 10 years ago, none existed.

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we stated that, “In ACOSA, Dear et al. (2010, p. 10) indicate that 85 percent of residents interviewed in 2005 believed scarlet macaws were more abundant than 5 years prior, which suggests this population may be increasing.” However, as pointed out by a peer reviewer, we failed to consider this study in our finding. For the purposes of reevaluating our July 6, 2012, finding on this DPS, we provide additional information from Dear et al. (2010, entire) below.

    In 2005, Dear et al. conducted interviews with 105 residents, representing 30 areas within ACOSA. Based on answers to a series of questions, scarlet macaws were found to occur throughout the Osa Peninsula, with the northern limit of the population occurring outside the peninsula in Playa Piñuelas. The southern mainland limit was Chacarita (about 15 km (roughly 9 miles) north of Golfito), in ACOSA. Estimates of the population's size ranged from 800 to 1,200 individuals, and interviewees generally believed that the numbers were increasing. Of 105 interviews, 89 (85%) believed that scarlet macaws were more abundant than 5 years prior, 12 interviewees (11%) considered the population had remained stable, and 4 (4%) thought there were fewer scarlet macaws. Dear et al. (2010, pp. 17, 20) state that both (1) the ACOSA population has increased and (2) that the population “is currently stable with the distribution thought to be increasing.”

    Dear et al. (2010, p. 19) states that although it is believed that poaching still exists in the region, results suggest incidence of chick poaching has decreased. Approximately half (48%) of those interviewed by Dear et al. believed that macaws were still being poached in ACOSA, and the others stated the activity did not currently occur (52%). Additionally, 43 percent of the interviewees mentioned that less poaching activity is occurring now than before, and none said the activity had increased. Based on interviews and information from park guards, Dear et al. estimate 25-50 chicks are poached each year. Dear et al. also state that, although results suggest incidence of chick poaching has decreased, the activity still occurs.

    Northwest Colombia Distribution and Trend

    Hilty and Brown (1986, p. 200) describe the range of scarlet macaw in northwest Colombia as the northern lowlands from eastern Cartagena to the low Magdalena Valley, southward to southeast Córdoba, and the middle Magdalena Valley southwest of Santander. The range in northwest Colombia includes the tropical zone of the Caribbean region, and the inter-Andean valleys, the largest of which are the Magdalena and Cuaca River valleys (Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21).

    We are not aware of any estimates of the numbers of scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia. The species is reported as probably close to extinction in the Magdalena Valley, Cuaca Valley, and north (Donegan 2013, in litt.; Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60). The species is reported to occur in the more remote and inaccessible western part of the region, but its status in this area is not clear. A 2009 scientific expedition in the Manso River Forest and Tigre River floodplain forest within Parque Nacional Natural Paramillo (PNN Paramillo), reported scarlet macaws as present. A 2004 study of the perceptions and uses of wild fauna by the Embera-Katios (Katios) indigenous communities in the San Jorge River Valley within the buffer zone of PNN Paramillo, reported that the Katios categorized the species as abundant (Racero et al. 2008, p. 124). However, the authors note that these indigenous communities recognize only 25 species of birds (Racero et al. 2008, p. 127), that the richness of the avifauna in this area is likely greater, and that they (the authors) did not verify the identification of scarlet macaws in the study area. As a result, given that the study site is also within the range of the red and green macaw (Ara chloropterus), which is similar in appearance to the scarlet macaw (Iñigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated), some portion of the macaws characterized as abundant by the Katios could have been red and green macaws.

    Threats

    Scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia are believed to be affected primarily by habitat loss, and to a lesser extent trade (Donegan 2013, in litt.). Loss of forest habitat in northwest Colombia has been extensive over the past several decades. The Magdalena and Caribbean regions have approximately only 7 percent and 23 percent (respectively) of their land area in original vegetation, with the remainder converted primarily to grazing land (79% and 68%, respectively) (Etter et al. 2006, p. 376). The Magdalena region lost 40 percent of its forest cover between 1970 and 1990, and an additional 15 percent between 1990 and 1996 (Restrepo & Syvitski 2006, pp. 69, 72). Within the Caribbean region, Miller et al. (2004) reports that PNN Paramillo (460,000 ha (1,136,680 ac)), Santuario de Fauna y Flora Los Colorados (Los Colorados Fauna and Flora Sanctuary) (1,000 ha (2,500 ac)), and Reserva Forestal de Montes de Maria (Montes Maria Forest Reserve) (7,460 ha (18,500 ac)) have lost 42, 71, and 70 percent of their forest, respectively, since they were created in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

    Deforestation is ongoing in northwest Colombia (Colombia Gold Report 2012, pp. 1-2; Ortega & Lagos 2011, pp. 81-82). A few large tracts of forest remain within the range of the scarlet macaw in this region, and all are deforestation hotspots (Ortega & Lagos 2011, p. 82; Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21). Forest loss in the region is due primarily to conversion of land to pasture and agriculture, but also mining, illicit crops, and logging (Ortega & Lagos 2011, pp. 85-86). Further, resource management in Colombia is highly decentralized, and governmental institutions responsible for oversight appear to be inconsistent throughout the country (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 292-293). The International Tropical Timber Organization considers the Colombian forestry sector to be lacking in law enforcement and on-the-ground control of forest resources, with no specific standards for large-scale forestry production, no forestry concession policies, and a lack of transparency in the application of the various laws regulating wildlife and their habitats (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 292-298). Consequently, there is currently no effective vehicle for overall coordination of species management for multijurisdictional species such as macaws. Therefore, we conclude that deforestation is a significant threat to the species in this region.

    Regarding trade, parrots and macaws in the buffer zone of PNN Paramillo are often captured by settlers for the regional illegal markets (Racero 2008, pp. 127-128). We are unaware of any other information indicating that capture of scarlet macaws for the pet trade may be a threat to the species in northwest Colombia.

    Reintroduction Efforts

    According to Dear et al. (2010, pp. 15-17), three scarlet macaw captive-release programs are located on the mainland coast of Southern Pacific Costa Rica, 15 to 20 km (9 to 12 miles) across the Gulf (Golfo Dulce) from the Osa Peninsula and its wild population of scarlet macaws. These include Santuario Silvestre de Osa (SSO) and Zoo Ave, which release birds in the Golfito area, and Amogos de las Aves, which releases birds at Punta Banco (Dear et al. 2010, pp. 15, 17; Forbes 2005, p. 97). SSO receives macaws confiscated from poachers in the area, and releases them in the area surrounding the sanctuary. The others receive macaws from all parts of Costa Rica and normally release only offspring of these confiscated birds, though Zoo Ave released five confiscated macaws. Macaws from the 3 facilities began to be released in 1997 and totaled 77 birds—9 released in Punta Banco and 68 in the Golfito area (Dear et al. 2010, p. 16). According to Dear et al. (2010, p. 16), of the 77 released birds, 67 are still alive.

    The range of birds released at Punta Banco has grown to reach 84 square km (32 square miles) (Dear et al. 2010, p. 17, citing Forbes 2005). According to Dear et al. 2010, (p. 19), the destiny of scarlet macaws released in the Golfito area is unknown, but wild and reintroduced populations could be mixing. They further indicate that reintroduction programs could be either an advantage or disadvantage for the natural population (see Additional Information on Subspecies A. m. cyanoptera—Reintroduction Efforts). According to the authors, releases could potentially aid in recolonization of the macaw population's original range, to the extent that the habitat within that range remains suitable. However, if wild and released macaws are in contact, diseases could be passed to the wild population that may have no resistance to these diseases. Further, macaws accustomed to humans could invoke behavioral changes in native scarlet macaws. For instance, scarlet macaws allowing humans to approach closely could facilitate the capture of adults.

    We are not aware of any information indicating that these three captive-release programs adhere to the IUCN Species Survival Commission guidelines for re-introductions, published by IUCN to help ensure that re-introduction efforts achieve intended conservation benefits and do not cause adverse side-effects of greater impact (IUCN/SSC 2013, entire; IUCN/SSC 1998, entire). Nor are we aware that these reintroduction programs adhere to recommendations of White et al. (2012, entire) for the reintroduction of parrots. Therefore, because we are unaware of information indicating that these captive-release programs are contributing to either the recovery or endangerment of the DPS, we do not consider these programs or the birds in these programs to be consequential in evaluating the status of this DPS.

    6. Reevaluation of Status of the Northern DPS of A. m. macao

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined the northern DPS of A. m. macao to be in danger of extinction (“endangered”). We based our determination of status of this DPS on the status of the birds in Panama (on Isla Coiba) and Costa Rica (in ACOPAC and ACOSA) due to the lack of information on the species in northwest Colombia. We determined ongoing threats to the three remaining populations in Costa Rica and Panama to be: deforestation (Isla Coiba), poaching, and small population size in combination with other threats. We found that the existing regulatory mechanisms were inadequate in addressing these threats.

    Based on our revision of the border between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao, the northern DPS of A. m. macao no longer includes the scarlet macaw population on Isla Coiba. The DPS consists of two known viable scarlet macaw populations in Costa Rica, an unknown number of birds in northwest Colombia, an isolated group of 10-25 birds in Palo Verde in northwest Costa Rica (Dear et al. 2010, p. 8), and a few groups of captive-released birds in a few locations within the Costa Rica portion of the DPS (Dear et al. 2010, p. 8; Forbes 2005, entire; Brightsmith et al. 2005, entire). As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, the Palo Verde group is extremely small, and we are unaware of any information suggesting that this group represents a self-sustaining, viable population.

    As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule and this revised proposed rule, A. m. macao has been extirpated from mainland Panama and much of its former range in Costa Rica, and the species has been all but extirpated from large areas of northwest Colombia. Its remaining distribution is highly fragmented, consisting of two isolated populations (ACOPAC and ACOSA) and an unknown number of birds isolated in northwest Colombia.

    The ACOPAC scarlet macaw population numbers approximately 450 birds. As indicated above and in our 2012 Proposed Rule, poaching of wildlife is reported to occur in this area. Scarlet macaws are one of the most susceptible species to poaching due to the species' slow rate of reproduction. However, the population was holding steady even with the amount of poaching occurring during that time (Vaughan 2005, p. 127). This apparent stability of the population indicates that poaching may not currently be major threats to this population. However, we specifically seek additional information on the status of this population.

    The most recent estimate of the ACOSA population, based on interviews with community members, is about 800-1,200 birds. Although the majority of residents interviewed indicated that there appeared to be more macaws in the year 2005 than in the 5 years previous (the year 2000), these results are based on perceptions of scarlet macaw abundance at two points in time over a limited time period (2000 versus 2005). Thus, although scarlet macaws appeared to be more abundant in 2005 than in 2000, whether this conclusion reflects an increasing population trend is unknown. For this reason, we consider the results of Dear et al. to indicate that the ACOSA scarlet macaw population is currently stable and that the distribution is increasing (Dear et al. 2010, p. 20). Although poaching of scarlet macaw chicks is known to occur in the region, the apparent stability of the population suggests poaching is not currently having a negative impact.

    The number of scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia is unknown, but habitat loss has caused the decline of the species there, such that the species has been all but extirpated from large areas in the region. Much of northwest Colombia has been deforested. Large tracts of forest remain, for instance, in the areas of Serrania de San Lucas and PNN Paramillo. However, deforestation in the region is expected to continue. According to Gonzales et al. (2011, p. 45), the Caribbean region of northwest Colombia showed the highest projected rate of change of forest cover for the year 2030 of all regions evaluated. Because deforestation has resulted in the near extirpation of the species from large areas of northwest Colombia and deforestation is projected to continue within the species' range in this region, it is reasonable to conclude that deforestation is a significant threat to the species in northwest Colombia. Table 2 includes the most recent estimated population densities for the northern DPS of A. m. macao.

    Table 2—Ara Macao Macao (Northern DPS) Population Estimates Population range Population name Population
  • estimates
  • Literature cited
    Costa Rica Costa Rica's Central Pacific Conservation Area (ACOPAC) ~450 Arias et al. 2008, in McReynolds 2011, in litt. Costa Rica Costa Rica's Osa Conservation Area (ACOSA) 800-1,200 Dear et al. 2005 and Guzman 2008, in McReynolds 2011, in litt. Northwest Colombia Northwest Colombia ~unknown~ Donegan 2013, in litt.; Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60.
    Finding for the Northern DPS of A. m. macao

    The Act defines “endangered” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and “threatened” as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined the northern DPS of A. m. macao to be in danger of extinction (“endangered”). However, new information indicates that the ACOPAC population is currently stable, and that the ACOSA population—the largest of the DPS— is currently stable or possibly increasing. New information indicates that poaching does not currently act as a threat on these two populations. Therefore, as the two largest populations within the DPS are currently stable, it is reasonable to conclude that the northern DPS of A. m. macao is not currently in danger of extinction. The best available information indicates that the population in northwest Colombia faces significant ongoing threats and may be potentially extirpated from Colombia. If this population is lost, the DPS would contain only two scarlet macaw populations. However, although no current population estimates are available for northwest Colombia, this region is reported to have large tracts of forest suitable for supporting a population which may provide sufficient resiliency and redundancy for the DPS. If, during the public comment period, we receive additional information on the northern DPS of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) and/or on the northwest Colombia population indicating that listing the DPS rangewide is not warranted, then we may consider whether the Colombia population constitutes a significant portion of the range (SPR) of the DPS and would, at that time, determine whether the DPS warrants a threatened or endangered status. We encourage the public to provide us with any additional information pertaining to this population, including any information on whether this population constitutes an SPR of the DPS. Although the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations are considered stable, both are small and isolated, and their range represents only a portion of the range of the DPS. Therefore, although the two largest populations currently appear to be stable and may be increasing, we find that the best available information indicates that current threats to scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia (deforestation), and the small and isolated status of the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations, place this DPS in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we revise our July 6, 2012, proposal of listing the northern DPS of the A. m. macao from “endangered” to “threatened” in accordance with the definitions of each as they pertain to the Act.

    7. Treating the Southern DPS of A. m. macao and Subspecies Crossings (A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera) as Threatened Under 4(e) Similarity of Appearance Provisions

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that the scarlet macaws (A. m. macao) south and east of the Andes (northern South America), constituted a valid DPS of the subspecies A. m. macao pursuant to our 1996 DPS Policy (77 FR 40222, 40242, July 6, 2012) (See Revising the Border Between Subspecies and Reaffirming DPSs: Reaffirming A. m. macao DPSs above). Additionally, we determined that listing the southern DPS of A. m. macao throughout its range was not warranted. During the public comment period, we received no additional information indicating that threats on this DPS have elevated to the point that it would warrant an endangered or threatened listing.

    However, in our 2012 Proposed Rule, we discussed a potential listing of the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crossings based on the similarity of appearance provisions of the Act and requested information regarding scarlet macaw morphological differences that may provide a mechanism for distinguishing between the listed entities and the non-listed entities. During the public comment period, we received additional information supporting a similarity of appearance listing for the southern DPS of A. m. macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crossing (crosses between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao).

    Standard

    Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the treatment of a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment as endangered or threatened if: “(a) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this Act.” All applicable prohibitions and exceptions for species treated as threatened under section 4(e) of the Act due to similarity of appearance to a threatened or endangered species will be set forth in a rule proposed under section 4(d) of the Act.

    Analysis

    In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we requested information regarding scarlet macaw morphological differences that may provide a mechanism for distinguishing between the listed entities and the non-listed entities. During the public comment period, we received information on several factors which make differentiating between scarlet macaw listable entities difficult. First, the scarlet macaw subspecies, Ara macao macao and Ara macao cyanoptera, primarily differ in the coloration of their wing coverts (a type of feather) and wing size. However, these differences are not always apparent, especially in birds from the middle of the species' range (which may include crosses between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao), making it difficult or impossible to visually differentiate between subspecies (Schmitt 2011 pers. comm.; Weidenfeld 1994, pp. 99-100). According to information received from the Service's Forensics Laboratory, many scarlet macaw remains submitted for examination by Office of Law Enforcement special agents and wildlife inspectors do not consist of intact carcasses; rather, evidence is usually in the form of partial remains, detached feathers, and artwork incorporating their feathers. Therefore, identification of subspecies and/or the geographic origin of these birds arehighly improbable without genetic analysis, which would add considerable difficulties and cost for law enforcement. Second, we are not aware of any information indicating that distinguishing morphological differences between the northern and southern DPS of A. m. macao would allow for visual identification of the origin of a bird of this subspecies. Lastly, many commenters noted that aviculturists have bred the species without regard for taxa, resulting in crosses of the two subspecies (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) that maintain a combination of characteristics of either parent, being present in trade (Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 103). As a result, the similarity of appearance between the unlisted southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses to the listed northern DPS of A. m. macao and A. m . cyanoptera may result in the ability to pass off a protected specimen as the unlisted DPS or unlisted subspecies cross and poses an additional threat to the Northern DPS and A.m. cyanoptera. Therefore, we consider this difficulty in discerning the unlisted DPS and unlisted subspecies crosses from the listed Northern DPS and A.m. cyanoptera as an additional threat to the listed entities.

    Thus, this close resemblance between the listed entities and the unlisted entities makes differentiating the scarlet macaw entities proposed for listing (the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and the northern DPS of the subspecies A. m. macao) from those that are not proposed for listing (individuals of the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crossings (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao)) difficult for law enforcement, making it difficult for law enforcement to enforce and further the provisions and policies of the Act.

    We determine that treating the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) under the 4(e) similarity of appearance provisions under the Act will substantially facilitate law enforcement actions to protect and conserve scarlet macaws. If the southern DPS of A. m. macao or subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) were not listed, importers/exporters could inadvertently or purposefully misrepresent a specimen of A. m. cyanoptera or the northern DPS of A. m. macao as a specimen of the unlisted entity, creating a loophole in enforcing the Act's protections for listed species of scarlet macaw. The listing will facilitate Federal and state law-enforcement efforts to curtail unauthorized import and trade in A. m. cyanoptera or the northern DPS of A. m. macao. Extending the prohibitions of the Act to the similar entities through this listing of those entities due to similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act and providing applicable prohibitions and exceptions in a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act will provide greater protection to A. m. cyanoptera and the northern DPS of A. m. macao. Additionally, although the 4(e) provisions of the Act do not contain criteria as to whether a species listed under the similarity of appearance provisions should be treated as endangered or threatened, we find that treating the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened is appropriate because the 4(d) rule, for the reasons mentioned in our necessary and advisable finding, provides adequate protection for these entities. For these reasons, we are proposing to treat the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened due to the similarity of appearance to A. m. cyanoptera and the northern DPS of A. m. macao, pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act.

    Finding for the Southern DPS of A. m. macao and Subspecies Crossings

    For the reasons discussed above, we propose to treat the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the endangered A. m. cyanoptera and the threatened northern DPS of A. m. macao, pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act.

    8. Proposed 4(d) Rule

    The ESA provides measures to prevent the loss of species and their habitats. Section 4 of the Act sets forth the procedures for adding species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and section 4(d) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to extend to threatened species the prohibitions provided for endangered species under section 9 of the Act. Our implementing regulations for threatened wildlife, found at title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in § 17.31, incorporate the ESA section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife, except when a species-specific rule under section 4(d) of the Act is promulgated. For threatened species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service discretion to specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those prohibitions that are appropriate for the species, as well as include provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. A rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act allows us to include provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of that threatened species and which may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.

    We are proposing a 4(d) rule that would apply to the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) and to crosses of the two scarlet macaw subspecies, A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera. We are including subspecies crosses in this rule because aviculturists have bred the species without regard to their taxa, resulting in crosses of the two subspecies being present in trade (Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 103). If the proposed 4(d) rule is adopted, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 will apply to A. m. macao and subspecies crosses of A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera, except that import and export of certain A. m. macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses into and from the United States and certain acts in interstate commerce will be allowed without a permit under the Act, as explained below. For activities otherwise prohibited under the 4(d) rule involving specimens of the southern DPS of the scarlet macaw and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses, such activities would require authorization pursuant to the similarity-of-appearance permit regulations at 50 CFR 17.52. If an applicant is unable to meet the issuance criteria for a similarity-of-appearance permit and demonstrate that the scarlet macaw in question is a subspecific cross or originated from the Southern DPS of the A.m. macao, authorization for an otherwise prohibited activity would need to be obtained under the general permit provisions for threatened species found at 50 CFR 17.32. For activities otherwise prohibited under the 4(d) rule involving specimen of the northern DPS of the scarlet macaw (A. m. macao), such activities would require authorization pursuant to the general permit provisions for threatened species found at 50 CFR 17.32.

    Import and Export

    The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to all commercial and noncommercial international shipments of live and dead southern subspecies of scarlet macaws and subspecific crosses of A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera and their parts and products, including the import and export of personal pets and research samples. In most instances, the proposed rule will adopt the existing conservation regulatory requirements of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and export of certain scarlet macaws. The import into the United States and export from the United States of birds taken from the wild after the date this species is listed under the Act; conducting an activity that could take or incidentally take scarlet macaws; and certain activities in foreign commerce would require a permit under the Act. Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species and § 17.32 for threatened species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, a permit may be issued for the same activities, as well as zoological exhibition, education, and special purposes consistent with the Act. Although the general permit provisions for threatened species are found at 50 CFR 17.32, the Service issues permits for otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or threatened species treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance under the regulatory criteria at 50 CFR 17.52.

    However, this proposed 4(d) rule would allow a person to import or export either: (1) A specimen held in captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the Act; or (2) a captive-bred specimen, without a permit issued under the Act, provided the export is authorized under CITES and the import is authorized under CITES and the WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the wild and held in captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the Act, the importer or exporter will need to provide documentation to support that status, such as a copy of the original CITES permit indicating when the bird was removed from the wild or museum specimen reports. For captive-bred birds, the importer would need to provide either a valid CITES export/re-export document issued by a foreign CITES Management Authority that indicates that the specimen was captive-bred by using a source code on the face of the permit of either “C,” “D,” or “F.” For exporters of captive-bred birds, a signed and dated statement from the breeder of the bird, along with documentation on the source of their breeding stock, would document the captive-bred status of U.S. birds.

    The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to birds captive-bred in the United States and abroad. The terms “captive-bred” and “captivity”' used in this proposed rule are defined in the regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 and refer to wildlife produced in a controlled environment that is intensively manipulated by man from parents that mated or otherwise transferred gametes in captivity. Although the proposed 4(d) rule requires a permit under the Act to “take” (including harm and harass) a scarlet macaw, “take” does not include generally accepted animal-husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or provisions of veterinary care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when such practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury to the wildlife when applied to captive wildlife.

    We assessed the conservation needs of the scarlet macaw in light of the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the WBCA. The scarlet macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES, a treaty that contributes to the conservation of the species by monitoring international trade and ensuring that trade in Appendix-I species is not detrimental to the survival of the species. The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of exotic birds and to ensure that imports of exotic birds into the United States do not harm them. The best available data indicate that the current threat to the scarlet macaw stems mainly from illegal trade in the domestic markets of Central and South America (Weston and Memon 2009, pp. 77-80, citing several sources; Shanee 2012, pp. 4-9). Thus, the general prohibitions on import and export contained in 50 CFR 17.31, which extend only within the jurisdiction of the United States, would not regulate such activities. Accordingly we find that the import and export requirements of the proposed 4(d) rule provide the necessary and advisable conservation measures for this species.

    Interstate Commerce

    Under the proposed 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship A. m. macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in interstate commerce A. m. macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses without a permit under the Act. At the same time, the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.31 would apply under this proposed rule, and any interstate commerce activities that could incidentally take A. m. macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses or otherwise prohibited acts in foreign commerce would require a permit under the Act. We have no information to suggest that current interstate commerce activities are associated with threats to the scarlet macaw or would negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species. Therefore, because interstate commerce within the United States has not been found to threaten the scarlet macaw, the species is otherwise protected in the course of interstate commercial activities under the take provisions and foreign commerce provisions contained in 50 CFR 17.31, and international trade of this species is regulated under CITES, we find this proposed rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the scarlet macaw.

    Required Determinations Clarity of Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must: (1) Be logically organized; (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly; (3) Use clear language rather than jargon; (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us page numbers and the names of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)

    This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rulemaking will not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the office listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Author

    The primary author of this revised proposed rule is the staff of the Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended on July 6, 2012, at 77 FR 40222, as set forth below:

    PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 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 § 17.11(h) by adding four entries for “Macaw, scarlet” to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under Birds, to read as follows:
    § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

    (h) * * *

    Species Common name Scientific name Historic range Vertebrate
  • population where
  • endangered or
  • threatened
  • Status When listed Critical
  • habitat
  • Special rules
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Birds *         *         *         *         *         *         * Macaw, scarlet Ara macao cyanoptera Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama Entire E NA NA Macaw, scarlet (Northern DPS) Ara macao macao Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Panama, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela Colombia (northwest of the Andes), Costa Rica, Panama T NA 17.41(c) Macaw, scarlet (Southern DPS) Ara macao macao Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Panama, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia (southeast of the Andes), Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela T(S/A) NA 17.41(c) Macaw, scarlet (Subspecies crosses) Ara macao macao x Ara macao cyanoptera Costa Rica, Nicaragua Entire T(S/A) NA 17.41(c) *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. Amend § 17.41 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 17.41 Special rules—birds.

    (c) The following species in the parrot family: Salmon-crested cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria), white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), and scarlet macaw (Ara macao macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses (Ara macao macao and Ara macao cyanoptera)).

    (1) Except as noted in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, all prohibitions of § 17.31 of this part apply to these species.

    (2) Import and export. You may import or export a specimen from the southern DPS of Ara macao macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses without a permit issued under § 17.52 of this part, and you may import or export all other specimen without a permit issued under § 17.32 of this part, only when the provisions of parts 13, 14, 15, and 23 of this chapter have been met and you meet the following requirements:

    (i) Captive-bred specimens: The source code on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) document accompanying the specimen must be “F” (captive born), “C” (bred in captivity), or “D” (bred in captivity for commercial purposes) (see 50 CFR 23.24); or

    (ii) Specimens held in captivity prior to certain dates: You must provide documentation to demonstrate that the specimen was held in captivity prior to the applicable date specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section. Such documentation may include copies of receipts, accession or veterinary records, CITES documents, or wildlife declaration forms, which must be dated prior to the specified dates.

    (A) For salmon-crested cockatoos: January 18, 1990 (the date this species was transferred to CITES Appendix I).

    (B) For yellow-billed parrots: April 11, 2013 (the date this species was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).

    (C) For white cockatoos: July 24, 2014 (the date this species was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).

    (D) For scarlet macaws: [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] (the date this species was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).

    (3) Interstate commerce. Except where use after import is restricted under § 23.55 of this chapter, you may deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate commerce and in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell, in interstate commerce the species listed in this paragraph (c) without a permit under the Act.

    Dated: March 24, 2016. James W. Kurth Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07492 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 160202068-6068-01] RIN 0648-XE425 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this action is to modify the specifications for northern and southern red hake for fishing years 2016 and 2017. This action is necessary to implement the Council's recommended measures in response to updated scientific information. The proposed specifications are intended to help achieve sustainable yield and prevent overfishing.

    DATES:

    Public comments must be received by April 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0030, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0030, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Red Hake Specifications.”

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared a Supplemental Information Report for the small-mesh multispecies specifications that describes the proposed action. The Council's document provides a discussion of the alternatives and the expected impacts. Copies of the specifications-related documents are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ or www.nefmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9218.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The New England Fishery Management Council manages the small-mesh multispecies fishery primarily through a series of exemptions from the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The small-mesh multispecies fishery is composed of five stocks of three species of hakes (northern and southern silver hake, northern and southern red hake, and offshore hake). It is managed separately from the other stocks of groundfish such as cod, haddock, and flounders, primarily because the fishery uses small mesh and modified nets that do not generally result in the catch of these other stocks. Amendment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (April 4, 2013; 78 FR 20260) established a process and framework for setting the small-mesh multispecies catch specifications, as well as set the specifications for the 2012-2014 fishing years. On May 28, 2015, specifications for the 2015-2017 fishing years were published (80 FR 30379), based on stock assessment updates using data through the spring 2014 survey. These specifications were based on an update to the previously accepted stock assessment, using data through the 2014 Federal spring trawl survey. A stock assessment update was completed in 2015, using data through the 2015 spring survey. The 2015 update indicates that the northern red hake stock is increasing in biomass, while the southern stock is decreasing.

    Proposed Measures

    The purpose of this action is to modify the northern and southern red hake specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years. The New England Fishery Management Council recommended these changes in response to its review of the most recent stock assessment update. A large year-class of northern red hake was identified in the 2013 Federal survey data. Because those fish were small at the time the 2015-2017 specifications were set, the impact to the specifications was minimal; however, the potential for a large increase in biomass during the middle of the specifications period was likely. The Council requested an update to the stock assessment in 2015 to monitor this year class and to adjust the specifications, if warranted.

    As expected, the 2015 stock assessment update showed an increase in the northern red hake stock. The update also showed a decrease in the southern red hake stock; however, the reasons for the decline in the southern stock area are unclear.

    In response to these changes, this rule proposes to increase the northern red hake and to decrease the southern red hake 2016 and 2017 annual catch limits and total allowable landings limits (Table 1), consistent with the stock assessment update and the Council's recommendation. The increase to the northern stock specifications will allow the fishery to benefit from this increase in biomass, as well as avoiding unnecessary discards by ensuring the possession limit is not reduced sooner than needed, while not substantially changing the already low risk of overfishing. The decrease in the southern stock specifications is necessary to reduce the risk of overfishing, even though recent landings are approximately 20 percent below the proposed revised specifications (Table 2).

    Table 1—Summary of the Red Hake Specifications, in Metric Tons Northern Red Hake Existing Proposed Southern Red Hake Existing Proposed Overfishing Limit 331 556 3,400 1,816 Acceptable Biological Catch 287 496 3,179 1,717 Annual Catch Limit (ACL) 273 471 3,021 1,631 Total Allowable Landings (TAL) 104.2 120 1,309.4 746 Table 2—Comparison Between Proposed 2016-2017 Red Hake Specifications and 2014 Catch and Landings, in Metric Tons Northern Red Hake Southern Red Hake Proposed ACL 471 1,631 2014 Catch 278 1,277 % of Proposed ACL 56% 74% Proposed TAL 120 746 2014 Landings 74 603 % of Proposed TAL 62% 81% Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with a supplemental information report. These analyses identified 1,007 unique fishing entities, 990 of which are considered small under current business standards, in the Greater Atlantic Region that could be affected by the proposed change. However, only 167 federally permitted vessels, all of which qualify as small entities under the Small Business Administration's small business standards, are expected to participate in the small-mesh fishery in the next two years. The proposed measures would modify the total allowable landings and catch limits consistent with recent scientific information. Under the proposed measures, the northern red hake stock catch limits increase, while the southern red hake stock catch limits decrease. A slight positive impact from the northern red hake stock may occur; however, red hake is generally not the target species for a given small-mesh fishing trip. Its value is much lower than silver hake (i.e., whiting), herring, and squid, which are the primary target species for vessels using small mesh. In addition, the southern red hake landings in recent years are below the proposed reduced landings limit, which is not expected to be constraining. Therefore, the economic impacts of this action are expected to be minimal. Although a large number of small entities may be affected, the effect will be neither negative nor significant.

    As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07968 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 67 Thursday, April 7, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0026] Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a call for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing a call for nominations to the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee. The Committee was re-chartered in July 2015 for the 2015-2017 two-year term.

    DATES:

    Written nominations must be received on or before May 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations should be sent to Charles W. Parrott, Deputy Administrator, Specialty Crops Program, through Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Officer, at AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2077-S, Stop 0235, Washington, DC 20250-0235; Facsimile: (202) 720-0016. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Official; Phone: (202) 720-3334; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to nominate twelve (12) industry members to the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee to serve two-year terms. The purpose of the Committee is to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry, and provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to better meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. The Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service's Specialty Crops Program will serve as the Committee's Executive Secretary. Representatives from USDA mission areas and agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry will be called upon to participate in the Committee's meetings as determined by the Committee Chairperson.

    Industry members will be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve two-year terms. Committee membership consists of twenty-five (25) members who represent the fruit and vegetable industry and will include individuals representing fruit and vegetable growers/shippers, wholesalers, brokers, retailers/restauranteurs, processors, fresh cut processors, foodservice suppliers, farmers markets and food hubs, state agencies involved in organic and conventional fresh fruits and vegetables at local, regional and national levels, State departments of agriculture, and trade associations and other commodity organizations.

    The Secretary of Agriculture invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above to nominate individuals or themselves for membership on the Committee. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's fruit and vegetable industry qualifications for membership to the Committee, and list their name, company/organization, address, telephone number, email, and fax number. The Secretary of Agriculture seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.

    Individuals who are nominated will receive necessary qualification and background forms from USDA for membership. The biographical information and clearance forms must be completed and returned to USDA within 10 working days of notification, to expedite the clearance process that is required before selection of Committee members by the Secretary of Agriculture.

    Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the Committee in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and limited resource agriculture producers.

    Dated: March 30, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07631 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0017] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Unshu Oranges From the Republic of Korea Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea into the continental United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0017.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2016-0017, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0017 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the regulations for the importation of Unshu oranges from the Republic of Korea into the continental United States, contact Mr. Marc Phillips, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, IRM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2114. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Unshu Oranges from the Republic of Korea into the Continental United States.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0314.

    Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the importation of citrus fruit from certain parts of the world as provided in “Subpart—Citrus Fruit” (7 CFR 319.28).

    In accordance with these regulations, APHIS allows the importation of Unshu oranges from Cheju Island, Republic of Korea, into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions involve the use of information collection activities, including packinghouse registration and a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the fruit has undergone surface sterilization and was inspected and found free of the plant pathogen that causes sweet orange scab.

    We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5675 hours per response.

    Respondents: Importers of Unshu oranges and the national plant protection organization of the Republic of Korea.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 4.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 9.25.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 37.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 21 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of April 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08013 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Economic Research Service Notice of Request for Approval of a 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 the study of “Census of Users of the National Plant Germplasm System.” This is a new collection to provide information on usage and expectations of future use among requestors of genetic resources from USDA's National Plant Germplasm System.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    Additional Information or Comments: Address all comments concerning this notice to Kelly Day Rubenstein, Resource and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mail Stop 1800, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Kelly Day Rubenstein at 202-694-4847 or via email to [email protected] For further information contact Kelly Day Rubenstein at the address above, or telephone 202-694-5515.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Census of Users of the National Plant Germplasm System.

    OMB Number: To be assigned by OMB.

    Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval date.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: The Census of Users of the National Plant Germplasm System will solicit data from the 6,009 institutional representatives who requested germplasm (i.e., living tissue from which plants can be grown) for any of ten crops including beans, barley, cotton, maize, sorghum, squash, soybeans, potato, rice, and wheat from the National Plant Germplasm System over a five year period from January 2009 to December 2013. Each respondent will be asked to provide information via a web-based questionnaire. Legislative authority for the planned data collection is 7 U.S.C. 2204(a) and 7 U.S.C. 2661.

    The information to be collected by the “Census of Users of the National Plant Germplasm System” is necessary to assess and understand the types and varieties of germplasm needed by breeders and other scientists in both the public and private sectors. This study will provide data not currently available to program officials and researchers, thereby broadening the scope of economic analyses of genetic enhancement, and in turn, enhancing R&D and productivity research at the Economic Research Service (ERS), the National Plant Germplasm System, and the National Germplasm Resource Laboratory. The database would contain a wealth of empirical information on germplasm use in breeding and research. This includes information by specific crops (e.g., the use of landraces in corn breeding, the search for biotic tolerance in wheat); the quantity of germplasm by type and purpose; institutional needs for germplasm (both public and private); and requestors' anticipated future use. This information will also assess biological traits that are needed for adaptation to climate change. Agriculture is highly geography-specific, given that growing regions vary by rainfall and temperature conditions, pest and disease pressures, and soil types. Accordingly, plant breeders work to develop unique varieties for different geographic locations. As a result, each requestor of NPGS germplasm is likely to have one characteristic—geographic location—which is unique and important to that institution's use of this germplasm, particularly in the context of global climate change. Moreover, it would be difficult to get adequate representation of the matrix of crops, germplasm types, and locations for some smaller crops (e.g., squash) without conducting a census of all germplasm requestors to the NPGS for any of the ten crops.

    A web-based instrument will be used for information collection. It will be kept as simple and respondent-friendly as possible. Responses are voluntary. The study instrument is based on a mailed paper-based instrument used in the 2000 study, “Demand for Genetic Resources from the National Plant Germplasm System.” It was jointly developed by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Auburn University's Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, the National Germplasm Resources Lab of the National Plant Germplasm System, and the Economic Research Service. The instrument used in the 2000 study was administered by IFPRI and Auburn University and had a response rate of 35%. Study design for currently proposed study is consistent with that of the 2000 study in order to make comparisons across time. The frame for this census comprises all germplasm requestors to the NPGS for any of the ten crops in the last five years. Although the NPGS provided germplasm to any requestor free of cost, it also informed potential requestors and received their consent, at the time of a request was made, that their information could be used for activities relating to the service that they had requested. Several measures will be taken to support the response rate for the proposed information collection:

    • Information will be collected via the internet rather than by mail. This data collection mode is more convenient for intended respondents and will allow for rapid follow up with non-respondents.

    • This information collection will be cosponsored by the National Germplasm Resources Laboratory of USDA, which is familiar to the recipients as it is the agency that provided the requested germplasm.

    • A well planned recruitment protocol will include sending the instrument with a cover letter from a senior staff member of the National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, who will be an individual familiar to many of the recipients. It also includes up to three reminder emails to non-respondents.

    Should the response rate fall below 80%, a non-response bias study will be conducted. The web-based instrument was pretested for ease of use by fewer than ten germplasm requestors contacted by USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the average time spent completing the forms was 13 minutes.

    Information from the Census of Users of the National Plant Germplasm System will be used for statistical purposes only and reported only in aggregate or statistical form. A public use data file will be created from this information collection. ERS does not intend to invoke CIPSEA or any other data protection statute for this collection, because it will not collect any sensitive or personal identifiable information.

    Estimate of Burden: In order to answer our research question about the use of germplasm for adaptation to climate change, a census is needed to pinpoint geo-spatial demand for germplasm. Thus, all 6,009 requestors of germplasm will be asked to fill out a web instrument once during a one month data collection period; non-respondents will receive three reminder emails. 80% of requestors are assumed to provide a response to one of the four emailed instruments. The estimated time of response is 0.34 hour. This average includes time spent completing the questionnaire and reading reminder emails. 20% will be non-respondents and will incur less than 1 minute of time to read the material. Thus, response times are estimated by adding an additional minute for each reminder sent, for a total of four minutes for requestors who never respond. These estimates of respondent burden are based on pretesting by ARS scientists, conducted by the National Germplasm Resources Laboratory of the National Plant Germplasm System.

    Type of Respondents: Respondents includes all individuals or institutions who requested germplasm for any of the aforesaid ten crops from the National Plant Germplasm System over the five year period as defined by this information collection.

    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 6,009.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,731.5 hours.

    Comments: All written comments received will be available for public inspection in the Resource Center of the Economic Research Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 355 E St. SW., Room 04P33, Washington, DC 20024-4221. 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. 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.

    Dated: March 29, 2016. Mary Bohman, Administrator, Economic Research Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08030 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. at the Forest Supervisor's Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    April 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 US Hwy 2, Libby, Montana.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    JeriAnn Chapel, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 283-7643, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda will include membership discussion—replacement/new, establishing committee rules, procedures and revisit project priorities, and review the status of prior projects list. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Missoulian, based in Missoula, Montana.

    Dated: March 28, 2016. Christopher Savage, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08011 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Wenatchee-Okanogan Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Wenatchee-Okanogan Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Wenatchee, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The purpose of the meeting is to review projects proposed for RAC consideration under Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/okawen/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on May 3, 2016.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Sunnyslope Fire Station, 206 Easy Street, Wenatchee, Washington.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF Headquarters Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    RAC Coordinator Robin DeMario by phone at 509-664-9292 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meetings is to:

    1. Provide status updates regarding Secure Rural Schools Program and Title II funding; and

    2. Review and recommend projects for Title II funding for Kittitas and Yakima Counties.

    These meetings are open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 11, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Robin DeMario, RAC Coordinator, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801; by email to [email protected] or via facsimile to 509-664-9286.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Jason Kuiken, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08012 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No.: 151222999-5999-01] Office of Administration; Commerce Alternative Personnel System AGENCY:

    Office of Administration, Office of Human Resources Management, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the expansion of employee coverage under the Commerce Alternative Personnel System, formerly the Department of Commerce Personnel Management Demonstration Project, published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1997. This coverage is extended to include employees located in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), employed under the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).

    DATES:

    This notice expanding and modifying the Commerce Alternative Personnel System is effective April 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Department of Commerce—Sandra Thompson, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Room 51020, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-0056 or Valerie Smith at (202) 482-0272.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background

    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved the Department of Commerce (DoC) demonstration project for an alternative personnel management system, and published the final plan in the Federal Register on Wednesday, December 24, 1997 (62 FR 67434). The demonstration project was designed to simplify current classification systems for greater flexibility in classifying work and paying employees; establish a performance management and rewards system for improving individual and organizational performance; and improve recruiting and examining to attract highly-qualified candidates. The purpose of the project was to strengthen the contribution of human resources management and test whether the same innovations conducted under the National Institute of Standards and Technology alternative personnel management system would produce similarly successful results in other DoC environments. The project was implemented on March 29, 1998. The project plan has been modified eight times to clarify certain DoC Demonstration Project authorities, and to extend and expand the project: 64 FR 52810 (September 30, 1999); 68 FR 47948 (August 12, 2003); 68 FR 54505 (September 17, 2003); 70 FR 38732 (July 5, 2005); 71 FR 25615 (May 1, 2006); 71 FR 50950 (August 28, 2006); 74 FR 22728 (May 14, 2009); 80 FR 25 (January 2, 2015). With the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, on December 26, 2007, the project was made permanent (extended indefinitely) and renamed the Commerce Alternative Personnel System (CAPS).

    CAPS provides for modifications to be made as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. This notice announces that the DoC expands CAPS to include non-bargaining unit employees in NOAA, OCIO, in all duty locations, as a participating organization. OCIO will convert employees to career paths and occupational series already established under CAPS, requiring no additional series to be added to accommodate the expansion.

    The DoC will follow the CAPS plan as published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1997, and subsequent modifications as listed in the Background Section of this notice.

    Kevin E. Mahoney, Director for Human Resources Management and Chief Human Capital Officer. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Basis for CAPS Expansion III. Changes to the Project Plan I. Executive Summary

    CAPS is designed to (1) improve hiring and allow DoC to compete more effectively for high-quality candidates through direct hiring, selective use of higher entry salaries, and selective use of recruitment incentives; (2) motivate and retain staff through higher pay potential, pay-for-performance, more responsive personnel systems, and selective use of retention incentives; (3) strengthen the manager's role in personnel management through delegation of personnel authorities; and (4) increase the efficiency of personnel systems through the installation of a simpler and more flexible classification system based on pay banding through reduction of guidelines, steps, and paperwork in classification, hiring, and other personnel systems, and through automation.

    The current participating organizations include 7 offices of the Chief Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary for Administration in the Office of the Secretary; the Bureau of Economic Analysis; 2 units of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): the Institute for Telecommunications Science and the First Responder Network Authority (an independent authority within NTIA); and 11 units of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Weather Service — Space Environment Center, National Ocean Service, Program Planning and Integration Office, Office of the Under Secretary, Marine and Aviation Operations, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Workforce Management Office.

    This amendment modifies the December 24, 1997, Federal Register notice. Specifically, it expands DoC CAPS to include NOAA, OCIO.

    II. Basis for CAPS Expansion A. Purpose

    CAPS is designed to provide managers at the lowest organizational level the authority, control, and flexibility to recruit, retain, develop, recognize, and motivate its workforce, while ensuring adequate accountability and oversight.

    The expansion of coverage to include NOAA, OCIO, should improve OCIO's ability to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce.

    DoC's CAPS allows for modifications of procedures if no new waiver from law or regulation is added. Given that this expansion and modification is in accordance with existing law and regulation and CAPS is a permanent alternative personnel system, the DoC is authorized to make the changes described in this notice.

    B. Participating Employees

    Employee notification of this expansion will be accomplished by providing a full set of briefings to employees and managers and providing them electronic access to all CAPS policies and procedures, including the nine previous Federal Register Notices. Employees will also be provided a copy of this Federal Register notice upon approval. Subsequent supervisor training and informational briefings for all employees will be accomplished prior to the implementation date of the expansion.

    III. Changes to the Project Plan

    The CAPS at DoC, published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1997 (62 FR 67434), is amended as follows:

    1. The following organization will be added to the project plan, Section II D—Participating Organizations National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
    [FR Doc. 2016-07982 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-EA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP)/National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

    Title: Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) Application.

    OMB Control Number: 0693-0006.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Revision of a current information collection.

    Number of Respondents: 30 organizations apply for the MBNQA; 550 individuals apply for a spot on the MBNQA Board of Examiners, the assessors who review the applications for the MBNQA.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes for organizational applications for MBNQA, and 30 minutes for applications for the Board of Examiners.

    Burden Hours: MBNQA = 15 hours, Board of Examiners = 275 hours.

    Needs and Uses: Collection needed to obtain information to conduct the MBNQA (Public Law 100-107, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987).

    Affected Public: Business, health care, education, or other for-profit organizations; health care, education, and other nonprofit organizations; and individuals or households.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07966 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. With respect to the antidumping duty orders of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India and Thailand, the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review for these cases will be published in a separate initiation notice.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, except for the reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Respondent Selection—Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan and the PRC

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and the PRC, the Department intends to select respondents, for the instant reviews, based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V questionnaires. We note that the units used to measure U.S. import quantities of solar cells and solar modules in CBP data are “number”; however, it would not be meaningful to sum the number of imported solar cells and the number of imported solar modules in attempting to determine the volume of subject merchandise exported by Taiwanese exporters. Moreover, we also have concerns regarding inconsistencies in the unit of measure used to report CBP data for solar modules exported from the PRC. Therefore, all parties for which we have initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and the PRC are hereby notified that they must timely respond to the Q&V questionnaire issued by the Department. Please be advised that due to the time constraints imposed by the statutory and regulatory deadlines for antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Department does not intend to grant any extensions for the submission of responses to the Q&V questionnaire.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

    All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

    3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

    For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

    Furthermore, companies to which the Department issues Q&V questionnaires in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC must submit a timely and complete response to the Q&V questionnaire, in addition to a timely and complete Separate Rate Status Application or Separate Rate Certification in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any timely Separate Rate Status Application or Separate Rate Certification made by parties to whom the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire but who failed to respond in a timely manner to the Q&V questionnaire.

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than Febuary 28, 2017.

    EN07AP16.006 EN07AP16.007 EN07AP16.008 EN07AP16.009 EN07AP16.010 EN07AP16.011 EN07AP16.012 EN07AP16.013 EN07AP16.014 EN07AP16.015 EN07AP16.016 EN07AP16.017 EN07AP16.018 EN07AP16.019 EN07AP16.020 EN07AP16.021 EN07AP16.022 EN07AP16.023 EN07AP16.024 EN07AP16.025 EN07AP16.026 EN07AP16.027 EN07AP16.028 EN07AP16.029 EN07AP16.030 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P Duty Absorption Reviews

    During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

    Gap Period Liquidation

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.12 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 13 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    12See section 782(b) of the Act.

    13See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08002 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-C
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-840, A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) received requests to conduct administrative reviews of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India and Thailand for the period February 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016. The anniversary month of these orders is February. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating these administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Effective: April 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse at (202) 482-6345 (India) and Dennis McClure (202) 482-5973 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    During the anniversary month of February 2016, the Department received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of the AD orders on shrimp from India and Thailand from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (hereinafter, AHSTAC), the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA), and certain individual companies.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of the AD orders on shrimp from India and Thailand, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the applicable review. Rebuttal comments will be due five days after submission of initial comments.

    In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of these antidumping proceedings (i.e., investigation, administrative review, or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to these reviews, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Requests for Reviews of Non-Shrimp Producers/Exporters

    In the 2011-2012 administrative review of shrimp from Thailand, the Department found that Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Kosamut) and Tanaya International Co., Ltd./Tanaya Intl (collectively, Tanaya) were neither exporters nor producers of the subject merchandise, as defined in 19 CFR 351.213(b) and 351.102(b)(29)(i). Accordingly, we rescinded the review for these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).2 Therefore, despite the fact that ASPA again requested a review of these companies, based upon that determination, we are not initiating an administrative review with respect to Kosamut or Tanaya for the current POR absent specific information that the companies at issue are exporters or producers of the subject merchandise.

    2See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Revocation of Order (in Part); 2011-2012, 78 FR 42497, 42498-42499 (July 16, 2013) (2011-2012 Thai Shrimp).

    In the 2013-2014 administrative review of shrimp from Thailand, the Department did not initiate a review with respect to GSE Lining Technology Co., Ltd. because the company neither produced nor exported shrimp.3 Therefore, despite the fact that ASPA again requested a review of this company, we are not initiating an administrative review with respect to it for the current POR absent specific information that it is an exporter or producer of the subject merchandise.

    3See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 18510 (April 2, 2014).

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on shrimp from India and Thailand. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than February 28, 2017.

    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P EN07AP16.041 EN07AP16.042 EN07AP16.043 EN07AP16.044 EN07AP16.045 EN07AP16.046 EN07AP16.047 EN07AP16.048 EN07AP16.049 EN07AP16.050 EN07AP16.051 EN07AP16.052 EN07AP16.053 Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to the administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in either of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) other data or statements of facts; (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.91 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 92 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in these administrative reviews if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    91See section 782(b) of the Act.

    92See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping duty proceedings.93 The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) submissions containing rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning CBP data; and (4) quantity and value questionnaire responses. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the Final Rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these administrative reviews.

    93See Extension of Time Limits: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08007 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-C
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-843] Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On March 7, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) in the antidumping investigation of certain cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil.1 We are amending our Preliminary Determination to correct for a ministerial error with respect to the calculation of the dumping margin for mandatory respondent Companhia Siderurgica National (CSN). The correction to CSN's margin affects the dumping margin applicable, as adverse facts available, to Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (Usiminas), as well as the dumping margin applicable to all other companies.

    1See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 81 FR 11754 (March 7, 2016) (Preliminary Determination).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hermes Pinilla or Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477 or (202) 482-1293, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 7, 2016, CSN timely filed an allegation that the Department made a significant ministerial error.2 After reviewing the allegation, we have determined that the Preliminary Determination included a significant ministerial error. Therefore, we have made changes, as described below, to the Preliminary Determination.

    2See CSN's March 7, 2016, submission.

    Scope of Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is cold-rolled steel from Brazil. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see Preliminary Determination, at Appendix I.

    Significant Ministerial Error

    A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” Further, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that the Department “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination.” A significant ministerial error is defined as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in: (1) A change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or de minimis and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than de minimis or vice versa.3

    3See 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1) and (2).

    Ministerial Error Allegation

    CSN alleges that the Department committed a ministerial error by double-counting its processing cost when the Department revised CSN's cost of manufacturing. Specifically, CSN contends that in recalculating CSN's cost of manufacturing, the Department double counted its home market resellers' processing costs, which significantly overstated the derived costs for the foreign like product produced by CSN and its home market reseller. The Department reviewed CSN's reporting of processing costs and we agree with CSN that this is a ministerial error in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(f).4 Moreover, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1), this error is significant because the correction of the error results in a change of at least 5 absolute percentage points, but not less than 25 percent, of the weighted-average dumping margin from the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, we are correcting the error alleged by CSN, and we are amending our preliminary determination accordingly.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from James Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated March 28, 2016.

    Amended Preliminary Determination

    We are amending the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value for cold-rolled flat steel produts from Brazil to reflect the correction of a ministerial error made in the margin calculations of that determination. As a result of the correction of the ministerial error, we have also revised the dumping margins applicable to Usiminas 5 and to all other companies. The revised dumping margins are as follows:

    5See Memorandum titled “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil: Corroboration of a Rate Based on Adverse Facts Available,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Exporter/Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Companhia Siderurgica Nacional 20.84 Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas) 35.43 All-Others 20.84
    Suspension of Liquidation

    The collection of cash deposits will be revised in accordance with sections 733(d) and (f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224. Because the correction of the error for CSN results in a reduced cash deposit rate for all of the respondents, the revised rates calculated for CSN, Usiminas, and companies covered by the “all others” rate will be effective retroactively to March 7, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.

    Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) The rates for CSN and Usiminas, when adjusted for export subsidies, are 16.71 and 31.61 percent, respectively; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise, less export subsidies; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters when adjusted for export subsidies is 16.86 percent.6 These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 79569 (Dec. 22, 2015) and the accompanying preliminary decision memorandum, dated December 15, 2015; see also the All-Others Rate Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Tade Commission (ITC) of our amended affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    The Department intends to disclose calculations performed in connection with this amended preliminary determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08010 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity will meet Thursday, April 14, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss the goals and outcomes of the Commission's work with an emphasis on topics for the Commission to review as it develops detailed recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial governments and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices. All sessions will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 14, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, U.S. Commerce Research Library Reading Room, Room 1894, located on the first floor at 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public and interested parties are requested to contact Kevin Stine in advance of the meeting for building entrance requirements.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Stine, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2000, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8900, telephone: (301) 975-4483, or by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity (“the Commission”) will meet Thursday, April 14, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The Commission is authorized by Executive Order 13718, Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.1 The Commission was established by the President and will make detailed recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, state, local, tribal and territorial governments and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices.

    1https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/02/12/2016-03038/commission-on-enhancing-national-cybersecurity.

    The agenda is expected to include the following items:

    — Introductions — Review Executive Order and Commission Charter — Discuss proposed scope of work — Discuss work plan for addressing scope of work — Informational briefings — Commission timeline — Public comment — Closure

    Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on http://www.csrc.nist.gov. Seating will be available for the public and media. No registration is required to attend this meeting.

    Public Participation: The Commission agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed fifteen minutes, for oral comments from the public on Thursday, April 14, 2016 (between 3:45 p.m. and 4 p.m.). Speakers will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Members of the public who are interested in speaking are requested to contact Kevin Stine at the contact information indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    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. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the Commission at any time. All written statements should be directed to the Commission Executive Director, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8900, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8900. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), this Federal Register notice for this meeting is being published fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting as exceptional circumstances exist. It is imperative that the meeting be held on April 14, 2016 to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants, who must begin work as soon as possible in order to complete the Commission's report by December 1, 2016, as required by Executive Order 13718 section 3(e) (February 9, 2016). Notice of the meeting is also posted on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Web site at www.csrc.nist.gov.

    Kevin Kimball, Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07954 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE548 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Public meeting; notice of agenda change.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, April 19, 20, and 21, 2016. It will start at 9 a.m. on April 19, and at 8:30 a.m. on both April 20th and 21st.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mystic Hilton Hotel, 20 Coogan Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355; telephone: (860) 572-0731, or online at http://hiltonmystic.com/.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The original notice published on April 4, 2016 (81 FR 19136). This notice publishes an additional item to the agenda on April 21, 2016.

    Agenda Thursday, April 21, 2016

    The Council has added an additional item to its existing agenda on the final meeting day of its April 19-21, 2016 meeting.

    Following a lunch break scheduled for 12:30 p.m., on April 21st, the Council has added consideration of a change to the spiny dogfish trip limit. Prior to taking any action, the NEFMC will receive an overview on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's request for the increase.

    Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07998 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; International Dolphin Conservation Program AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Daniel Studt, (562) 980-4073 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for revision of a currently approved information collection. The chain of custody recordkeeping requirements approved under an emergency revision per an interim final rule filed on March 22, 2016 (81 FR 15444), will become a permanent part of the collection.

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects information to implement the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (Act). The Act allows entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States (U.S.), under specific conditions, from nations in the International Dolphin Conservation Program that would otherwise be under embargo. The Act also allows U.S. fishing vessels to participate in the yellowfin tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) on terms equivalent with the vessels of other nations. NOAA collects information to allow tracking and verification of “dolphin-safe” and “non-dolphin safe” tuna products from catch through the U.S. market.

    The regulations implementing the Act are at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300 form the basis for this collection of information. This collection includes permit applications, notifications, tuna tracking forms, reports, and certifications that provide information on vessel characteristics and operations in the ETP, the origin of tuna and tuna products, chain of custody recordkeeping requirements and certain other information necessary to implement the Act.

    II. Method of Collection

    Paper applications, other paper records, electronic and facsimile reports, and telephone calls or email messages are required from participants. Methods of submittal include transmission of paper forms via regular mail and facsimile as well as electronic submission via email or an FTP site (password protected).

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0648-0387.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 279.

    Estimated Time per Response: 35 minutes for a vessel permit application; 10 minutes for an operator permit application, a notification of vessel arrival or departure, a change in permit operator; a notification of a net modification or a monthly tuna storage removal report; 30 minutes for a request for a waiver to transit the ETP without a permit (and subsequent radio reporting) or for a special report documenting the origin of tuna (if requested by the NOAA Administrator); 10 hours for an experimental fishing operation waiver; 15 minutes for a request for a Dolphin Mortality Limit; 35 minutes for written notification to request active status for a small tuna purse seine vessel; 5 minutes for written notification to request inactive status for a small tuna purse seine vessel or for written notification of the intent to transfer a tuna purse seine vessel to foreign registry and flag; 60 minutes for a tuna tracking form or for a monthly tuna receiving report; 30 minutes for IMO application or exemption request; 30 minutes for chain of custody recordkeeping reporting requirement.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 248.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $4,578.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07976 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE550 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The NMFS Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, has made a preliminary determination that an exempted fishing permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This exempted fishing permit would allow a commercial lobster fishing vessel in collaboration with the University of New England to conduct research on the injury and mortality of Atlantic cod caught as bycatch in lobster traps fished in the Gulf of Maine.

    Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for a proposed exempted fishing permit.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line “Comments on 2016 UNE Atlantic Cod Bycatch from Lobster Traps EFP.”

    Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “2016 UNE Atlantic Cod Bycatch from Lobster Traps EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-9112.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The University of New England (UNE) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to assess injury and mortality of cod caught as bycatch in lobster traps fished in the Gulf of Maine (GOM). This EFP would exempt a commercial lobster fishing vessel from the prohibition on landing Northeast (NE) multispecies established under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) at 50 CFR 648.14(k)(1)(i)(B). The vessel would also be exempt from the possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subparts B and D through O. The exemption from the prohibition on landing NE multispecies would allow the vessel to retain cod to evaluate injuries resulting from their catch. The possession limit and minimum size requirement exemptions would allow the vessel's crew to tag cod with acoustic transmitters and collect biological data before cod and other bycaught species are returned to sea. The EFP would allow these exemptions from May through October 2016. The data from this study are designed to provide fisheries managers information on cod discard mortality associated with the GOM lobster fishery. The NMFS Bycatch Reduction Engineering program funds this project.

    If the EFP is approved, the participating lobster vessel would deploy 400 traps in statistical area 513. Lobster traps would be hauled twice a week for 24 weeks, with a soak time of approximately 48-72 hours for each trip. The crew of the vessel would collect viability data for cod bycatch as outlined in the research proposal. A subsample (n = 100) of cod would be tagged with acoustic transmitters and released. The tagged cod would be monitored by an array of 30 acoustic receivers to evaluate acute and delayed mortality in their natural environment. Approximately 10 cod would be retained and landed each month to assess barotrauma and other physical effects of their capture. UNE research staff would accompany each trip in which cod are tagged or retained as part of the study. The vessel will retain the previously mentioned 10 cod per sampling month and all legal lobsters will be retained and sold. All other animals captured in the traps would be returned to the sea as soon as possible.

    If approved, the applicants may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07984 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID: USAF-2016-HQ-0003] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Air Force proposes to alter a system of records notice, System Identifier, F036 AFMC D, entitled “Education/Training Management System (ETMS)” to collect education and training information that will support the needs of the education and training communities located at Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command and subordinate units.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before May 9, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: 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:

    Mr. LaDonne L. White, Department of the Air Force Privacy Office, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, ATTN: SAF/CIO A6, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or by phone at (571) 256-2515.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Air Force'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 of 1974, 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. F036 AFMC D System name:

    Education/Training Management System (ETMS) (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793)

    Changes: System name:

    Delete entry and replace with “Education and Training Management System (ETMS)”

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC), 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-5006.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Air Force active duty personnel and civilian employees, National Guard, and Reserve personnel.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, home address, personal telephone numbers, personal email address, degree earned and year, courses taken, date of hire and employment end date, supervisory level attained, pay plan and grade, series, rank, Air Force Specialty Code, and duty title. Acquisition license history to include occupational certifications, acquisition level and date attained. Training course dates, course codes, course titles, and hours completed.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; Air Force Materiel Command Instruction (AFMCI) 36-401, Employee Training and Development; Title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 41: Training; (EEO) Act of 1972 (PL 92-261); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “To collect education and training information that will support the needs of the education and training communities located at Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command and subordinate units.”

    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:

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Air Force complilation of system 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 “Electronic storage media.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name and/or SSN”.

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in a secure facility on the installation; physical entry is restricted by security guards and presentation of authenticated identification badges at entry control points, and cipher locks and key cards for access into buildings. Records are accessed by the custodian of the record system and by person(s) responsible for servicing the record system in the performance of their official duties using Common Access Cards. Persons are properly screened and cleared for access. The information is protected by using user profiles, passwords, and encryption.

    User profiles are role-based and ensure that only data accessible to the individual's role will appear on the screen.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are destroyed 10 years after the individual completes or discontinues a training course, when superseded, obsolete, or training is completed and posted to the employees official personnel record. Computer records are destroyed by erasing, deleting, or overwriting.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Directorate of Manpower, Personnel, and Services, HQ AFMC/A1DS, Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC), 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-5006.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Directorate of Manpower, Personnel, and Services, HQ AFMC/A1DS, Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC), 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-5006.”

    For verification purposes, individual should provide their name, SSN, and any details which may assist in locating records, and their 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 of records should address written requests to Directorate of Manpower, Personnel, and Services, HQ AFMC/A1DS, Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC), 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-5006.

    For verification purposes, individual should provide their name, SSN, and any details which may assist in locating records, and their 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 records procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Air Force rules for accessing records and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332, The Air Force Privacy and Civil Liberties Program; 32 CFR part 806b, and may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual, Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS), Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS), Air Force Directory Service (AFDS), and Automated Distributed Learning System (ADLS)

    [FR Doc. 2016-07953 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0012] 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 notice, A0690-700 DAPE, Grievance Records. This system is used to review allegations, obtain facts, conduct hearings when appropriate, and render decision.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before May 9, 2016. This proposed action will be effective on the day 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) 428-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed 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 4, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0690-700 DAPE System name:

    Grievance Records (August 30, 1993, 58 FR 45488)

    Changes: System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Servicing civilian personnel offices for each Army activity or installation. Official mailing addresses of installations and activities are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Current or former employees of the Department of the Army who have submitted grievances in accordance with the regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (5 CFR part 771) or through a negotiated grievance procedure.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, date of birth, approximate date of closing the case and kind of action taken, organization and activity where employed at time grievance was initiated; copies of documents in the employee's possession related to the grievance, including statements of witnesses, reports of interviews and hearings, examiner's finding and recommendations, copy of the original and final decisions, and related correspondence and exhibits; and the name, address and telephone number of the employee's representative, if any.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 5 CFR 771, Agency Administrative Grievance System; Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25, Volume 771, DoD Civilian Personnel Management System: Administrative Grievance System.”

    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:

    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.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “All records are maintained in a secured office and building. Lockable file cabinets are used. 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.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Closed cases are retired at the end of the calendar year, and destroyed by shredding or burning four years after the calendar year cutoff date.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 4000 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-4000.

    Individuals should provide the name, date of birth, approximate date of closing the case and kind of action taken, organization and activity where employed at time grievance was initiated, 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 inquiries to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 4000 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-4000.

    Individual should provide the name, date of birth, approximate date of closing the case and kind of action taken, organization and activity where employed at time grievance was initiated, 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.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “From the individual on whom the record is maintained; testimony of witnesses; and related correspondence.”

    [FR Doc. 2016-07962 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0013] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to add a new System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army proposes to add a new system of records, A0 1000.21, OAA DoD, entitled “Visa Passport Automated System (VPAS),” to track and provide real time status on the processing of no-fee passport and visa applications for all military and government civilian personnel and eligible dependent family members.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before May 9, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day 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 22315-3827 or by phone at 703-428-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense 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 system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 28, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0 1000.21, OAA DoD System name:

    Visa Passport Automated System (VPAS).

    System location:

    Logistics Services Washington (LSW), 9301 Chapek Road, Bldg. 1458, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-1298.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    This applies to all U.S. citizen military personnel (active duty and reserve) and civilian employees and their family members eligible for a no-fee passport and/or visa. Eligibility is determined by U.S. citizenship and passport or visa requirements outlined in the DoD Foreign Clearance Guide. Family members must be authorized to accompany the sponsor on official travel orders.

    Categories of records in the system:

    The following information is recorded in the system: Full name, date of birth, place of birth, sponsor's name and Social Security Number (SSN), military rank/civilian grade, current home address, email address, the destination, the travel date, the no-fee passport number, issue and expiration date, the purpose of travel, assignment type and duration of assignment, and date the passport is required.

    Family member information:

    Full name, date of birth, place of birth, home address, home telephone number, and office telephone number.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; DoD 1000.21-R, Passport and Passport Agent Services Regulation; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    Purpose(s):

    The purpose of this system is to track and provide real time status on the processing of no-fee passport and visa applications for all U.S. citizen military personnel (active duty-reserve) and civilian employees and their family members eligible for a no-fee passport.

    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 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 the Department of State for the issuance of a no-fee passport, a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) stamp.

    To Foreign Embassies to obtain a foreign entry visa.

    To a Federal, State, local government or foreign agency as a routine use in response to such an agency's request for information arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, if necessary, and only to the extent necessary, to enable such agency to discharge its responsibilities of enforcing or implementing the statute.

    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:

    Electronic storage media and paper records.

    Retrievability:

    Full name, date of birth, passport number, sponsor's SSN, and telephone number.

    Safeguards:

    Records are kept in a secure and controlled area. Access to the system is CAC protected and is restricted to authorized personnel. The application is scanned for vulnerabilities by the Army/OAA/ITA Enterprise Information & Mission Assurance Organization.

    Retention and disposal:

    Disposition pending until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved retention and disposition of these records, treat as permanent.

    System manager(s) and address:

    Division Chief, Logistics Services Washington, Travel Services Division, 9301 Chapek Road, Bldg. 1458, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-1298.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to Logistics Services Washington (LSW), 9301 Chapek Road, Bldg. 1458, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-1298.

    The requester should provide full name, mailing address, date of birth, passport number, sponsor's SSN, telephone number, email, 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:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves, contained in this system should address written inquiries to Director, Logistics Services Washington (LSW), 9301 Chapek Road, Bldg. 1458, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-1298.

    The requester should provide full name, mailing address, date of birth, passport number, sponsor's SSN, telephone number, email, 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:

    The Army's rule for accessing records, 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.

    Record source categories:

    From the individual.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-07975 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [OMB Control No. 0704-0216; Docket Number DARS-2016-0012] Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 228, Bonds and Insurance, and Related Clauses in DFARS 252.228 AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 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 the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection under Control Number 0704-0216 for use through August 31, 2016. DoD is proposing that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years.

    DATES:

    DoD will consider all comments received by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0216, using any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB Control Number 0704-0216 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (571) 372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Christopher Stiller, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Rm. 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Christopher Stiller, at 571-372-6176. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html. Paper copies are available from Mr. Christopher Stiller, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 228, Bonds and Insurance, and Related Clauses at 252.228; OMB Control Number 0704-0216.

    Needs and Uses: DoD uses the information obtained through this collection to determine (1) the allowability of a contractor's costs of providing war-hazard benefits to its employees; (2) the need for an investigation regarding an accident that occurs in connection with a contract; and (3) whether a non-Spanish contractor performing a service or construction contract in Spain has adequate insurance coverage.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for- profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 120.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 120.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 3.88 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 466.

    Reporting Frequency: On Occasion.

    Summary of Information Collection: The clause at DFARS 252.228-7000, Reimbursement for War-Hazard Losses, requires the contractor to provide notice and supporting documentation to the contracting officer regarding potential claims, open claims, and settlements providing war-hazard benefits to contractor employees.

    The clause at DFARS 252.228-7005, Accident Reporting and Investigation Involving Aircraft, Missiles, and Space Launch Vehicles, requires the contractor to report promptly to the administrative contracting officer all pertinent facts relating to each accident involving an aircraft, missile, or space launch vehicle being manufactured, modified, repaired, or overhauled in connection with the contract.

    The clause at DFARS 252.228-7006, Compliance with Spanish Laws and Insurance, requires the contractor to provide the contracting officer with a written representation that the contractor has obtained the required types of insurance in the minimum amounts specified in the clause, when performing a service or construction contract in Spain.

    Amy G. Williams, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07935 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket DARS-2015-0059] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 9, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Information Collection in Support of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 242; Contract Administration and Audit Services, and related clauses in DFARS part 252; OMB Control Number 0704-0250.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit, and not-for-profit institutions.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 7,418.

    Responses per Respondent: 12.8.

    Annual Responses: 94,963.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 2.02 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 192,372.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Needs and Uses: The Government requires this information in order to perform its contract administration functions. DoD uses the information as follows:

    a. The information required by DFARS subpart 242.11 is used by contract administration offices to monitor contract progress, identify factors that may delay contract performance, and to ascertain potential contract delinquencies.

    b. The information required by DFARS 252.242-7004 is used by contracting officers to determine if contractor material management and accounting systems conform to established DoD standards.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Amy G. Williams, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07934 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance Rate AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD or “the Department”), is proposing to establish a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel. This proposal is pursuant to the authority granted to DoD by section 591.104 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to Cheryl A. Opere, Pay Team, Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service, Department of Defense, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 05J25, Alexandria, VA 22350-1100.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cheryl Opere, 571-372-1682.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department is proposing to implement a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel. This is being established in accordance with 5 CFR 591.104, which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103.

    The current $800.00 limit has become inadequate to maintain the uniform standards and professional image expected of Federal uniformed security guards. The uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel include the following items or similar items such as: Winter gloves; battle dress uniform pants and blouses; cold weather and light weight duty jackets; duty sweaters; dress duty trousers; short sleeve summer and long sleeve winter duty dress shirts; jacket and pants rain gear; felt hats; duty caps; high gloss duty shoes; leather duty boots; duty ties; heavy duty battle dress uniform duty coats; cloth uniform insignia patches and cloth uniform badges. The average total uniform cost for the listed items is $1,800.00. Based on these current costs, the Department is proposing to increase the initial maximum uniform allowance for uniformed police personnel to $1,800.00. The number of uniformed security guard personnel affected by this change in the Department would be approximately 3,400 employees. The proposed effective date of this higher initial maximum uniform allowance rate is April 1, 2016.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07963 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act, notice is hereby given of the Board's closed meeting described below.

    DATES:

    2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m., April 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be closed to the public. No participation from the public will be considered during the meeting.

    Status

    Closed. During the closed meeting, the Board Members will discuss issues dealing with potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. The Board is invoking the exemption to close a meeting described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) and (9)(B) and 10 CFR 1704.4(c) and (h). The Board has determined that it is necessary to close the meeting since conducting an open meeting is likely to disclose matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, and/or be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. In this case, the deliberations will pertain to potential Board Recommendations which, under 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b) and (h)(3), may not be made publicly available until after they have been received by the Secretary of Energy or the President, respectively.

    Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will proceed in accordance with the closed meeting agenda which is posted on the Board's public Web site at www.dnfsb.gov. Technical staff may present information to the Board. The Board Members are expected to conduct deliberations regarding potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Joyce L. Connery, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08086 Filed 4-5-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information: Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL) Program. Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.215G. DATES:

    Applications Available: April 7, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 9, 2016.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 6, 2016.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The IAL program supports high-quality programs designed to develop and improve literacy skills for children and students from birth through 12th grade in high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) intends to support innovative programs that promote early literacy for young children, motivate older children to read, and increase student achievement by using school libraries as partners to improve literacy, distributing free books to children and their families, and offering high-quality literacy activities.

    The IAL program supports the implementation of high-quality plans for childhood literacy activities and book distribution efforts that are supported by evidence of strong theory.

    Priorities: This notice contains one absolute priority and three competitive preference priorities. The absolute priority is from the notice of final priorities, requirement, and definitions for this program (IAL NFP) published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2014 (79 FR 34428). Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 are from the Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425). Competitive Preference Priority 3 is from the IAL NFP.

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    High-Quality Plan for Innovative Approaches to Literacy That Include Book Distribution, Childhood Literacy Activities, or Both, and That Is Supported, at a Minimum, by Evidence of Strong Theory.

    To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan that is supported by evidence of strong theory, including a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice and a corresponding logic model.

    The applicant must submit a plan with the following information:

    (a) A description of the proposed book distribution, childhood literacy activities, or both, that are designed to improve the literacy skills of children and students by one or more of the following—

    (1) Promoting early literacy and preparing young children to read;

    (2) Developing and improving students' reading ability;

    (3) Motivating older children to read; and

    (4) Teaching children and students to read.

    (b) The age or grade spans of children and students from birth through 12th grade to be served.

    (c) A detailed description of the key goals, the activities to be undertaken, the rationale for those activities, the timeline, the parties responsible for implementing the activities, and the credibility of the plan (as judged, in part, by the information submitted as evidence of strong theory); and

    (d)(i) A description of how the proposed project is supported by strong theory; and

    (ii) The corresponding logic model.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional five points per priority to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priorities 1-3, for a total of 15 possible points.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1—Leveraging Technology To Support Instructional Practice and Professional Development. (5 points)

    Projects that are designed to leverage technology through using high-speed Internet access and devices to increase students' and educators' access to high-quality accessible digital tools, assessments, and materials, particularly open educational resources.

    Competitive Preference Priority 2—Improving Early Learning and Development Outcomes. (5 points)

    Projects that are designed to improve early learning and development outcomes across one or more of the essential domains of school readiness for children from birth through third grade (or for any age group within this range) through a focus on one or more of the following:

    (a) Increasing access to high-quality early learning and development programs and comprehensive services, particularly for children with high needs.

    (b) Improving the quality and effectiveness of the early learning workforce so that early childhood educators, including administrators, have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to improve young children's health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes.

    (c) Sustaining improved early learning and development outcomes throughout the early elementary school years.

    Competitive Preference Priority 3—Serving Rural Local Educational Agencies (LEAs). (5 points)

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed to provide high-quality literacy programming, or distribute books, or both, to students served by a rural LEA.

    Definitions: The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities, the IAL NFP, and 34 CFR 77.1(c).

    Children with high needs means children from birth through kindergarten entry who are from low-income families or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, including children who have disabilities or developmental delays; who are English learners; who reside on “Indian lands” as that term is defined by section 8013(7) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); who are migrant, homeless, or in foster care; and who are other children as identified by the State.

    Essential domains of school readiness means the domains of language and literacy development, cognition and general knowledge (including early mathematics and early scientific development), approaches toward learning (including the utilization of the arts), physical well-being and motor development (including adaptive skills), and social and emotional development.

    Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed processes, products, strategies, or practices. Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this section are met:

    (i) There is at least one study that is a—

    (A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;

    (B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or

    (C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

    (ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

    High-need local educational agency (High-need LEA) means—

    (i) Except for LEAs referenced in paragraph (ii), an LEA in which at least 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the school attendance area of the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for school districts for the most recent income year (Census list).

    (ii) For an LEA that is not included on the Census list, such as a charter school LEA, an LEA for which the State educational agency (SEA) determines, consistent with the manner described under section 1124(c) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, in which the SEA determines an LEA's eligibility for Title I allocations, that 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line.

    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    National not-for-profit organization (NNP) means an agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity. In addition, it means, for the purposes of this program, an organization of national scope that is supported by staff or affiliates at the State and local levels, who may include volunteers, and that has a demonstrated history of effectively developing and implementing literacy activities.

    Note:

    A local affiliate of an NNP does not meet the definition of NNP. Only a national agency, organization, or institution is eligible to apply as an NNP.

    Open educational resources means teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use and repurposing by others.

    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).

    Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.

    Rural local educational agency (Rural LEA) means an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program or the Rural and Low-Income School program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, at the time of application. (IAL NFP)

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

    Program Authority:

    Sections 5411-5413 of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; Title III of Division H of Pub. L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations in 34 CFR part 299. (e) The Supplemental Priorities. (f) The IAL NFP.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $26,475,715.00.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards to LEAs and Consortia of LEAs: $175,000 to $750,000 (annually).

    Estimated Average Size of Awards to LEAs and Consortia of LEAs: $500,000 (annually).

    Estimated Number of Awards to LEAs and Consortia of LEAs: 30.

    Estimated Range of Awards to NNPs, Consortia of NNPs, and Consortia of NNPs and LEAs: $1,500,000 to $5,000,000 (annually).

    Estimated Average Size of Awards to NNPs, Consortia of NNPs, and Consortia of NNPs and LEAs: $3,000,000 (annually).

    Estimated Number of Awards to NNPs, Consortia of NNPs, and Consortia of NNPs and LEAs: 2-6.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 24 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: To be considered for an award under this competition, an applicant must:

    (a) Be one of the following:

    (1) A high-need LEA (as defined in this notice);

    (2) An NNP (as defined in this notice) that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs;

    (3) A consortium of NNPs that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs;

    (4) A consortium of high-need LEAs; or

    (5) A consortium of one or more high-need LEAs and one or more NNPs that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs.

    (b) Coordinate with school libraries in developing project proposals.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet, from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), or from the program office. To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: www2.ed.gov/programs/innovapproaches-literacy/applicant.html.

    To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program as follows: CFDA number 84.215G.

    To obtain a copy from the program office, write, call, or send an email to the following person: Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E332, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-5798 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to no more than 25 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will be not accepted.

    The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; eligibility information; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the logic model, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.

    Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that exceed the page limit.

    Note:

    The applicant should include, as an attachment, the logic model used to address paragraph (d)(ii) of the absolute priority.

    b. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the IAL program, an application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

    Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: April 7, 2016

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 9, 2016.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 6, 2016.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements:

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program, CFDA number 84.215G, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the IAL program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.215, not 84.215G).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the project narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason, it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application. These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and, provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E335, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-5798 or by email: [email protected]

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.215G), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.215G), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all selection criteria is 100. The maximum possible score for each selection criterion is indicated in parentheses. The selection criteria for this competition are as follows:

    (a) Significance (10 points). The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.

    (b) Quality of the project design (20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (4 points)

    (ii) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population. (4 points)

    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students. (4 points)

    (iv) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project. (4 points)

    (v) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by evidence of promise. (4 points)

    (c) Quality of project services (25 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    (i) The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (10 points)

    (ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (10 points)

    (iii) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (5 points)

    (d) Adequacy of resources (10 points). The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    (i) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. (5 points)

    (ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits. (5 points)

    (e) Quality of the management plan (20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:

    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (10 points)

    (ii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (5 points)

    (iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (5 points)

    (f) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

    4. Performance Measures: The Department has established the following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance measures for the IAL program: (1) The percentage of four-year-old children participating in the project who achieve significant gains in oral language skills; (2) the percentage of fourth graders participating in the project who demonstrated individual student growth (i.e., an improvement in their achievement) over the past year on State reading or language arts assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; (3) the percentage of eighth graders participating in the project who demonstrated individual student growth (i.e., an improvement in their achievement) over the past year on State reading or language arts assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; (4) the percentage of schools participating in the project whose book-to-student ratios increase from the previous year; and (5) the percentage of participating children who receive at least one free, grade- and language-appropriate book of their own.

    Note:

    For purposes of measures (2) and (3) above, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year, the applicable statutory provision is section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

    These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures, to the extent that they apply to the grantee's project.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E332, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-5798 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Ann Whalen, Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08051 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting AGENCY:

    Farm Credit Administration.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

    DATE AND TIME:

    The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on April 14, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

    ADDRESSES:

    Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about attendance requests.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

    Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • March 10, 2016 B. Reports • Quarterly Report on Economic Conditions and FCS Conditions • Farm Credit System Building Association Auditor's Report on 2015 Financial Audit Closed Session* • Office of Examination Quarterly Report Closed Executive Session • Executive Session—FCS Building Association Auditor's Report

    * Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).

    ** Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2).

    Dated: April 5, 2015. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08115 Filed 4-5-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination, 10294 North County Bank, Arlington, Washington

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10294 North County Bank, Arlington, Washington (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of North County 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 4, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07990 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination, 10326 Legacy Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10326 Legacy Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Legacy 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 4, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07988 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    Items To Be Discussed:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceeding, or an arbitration. Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220

    Shelley E. Garr, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08143 Filed 4-5-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 2, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Chemical Financial Corporation, Midland, Michigan; to merge with Talmer Bancorp, Inc., Troy, Michigan, and thereby acquire voting shares of Talmer Bank and Trust, Troy, Michigan.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07972 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 2, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. H Bancorp LLC, Irvine, California; to acquire additional shares of Bay Bancorp and indirectly acquire Bay Bank, both in Columbia, Maryland, and thereby engage in operating a savings and loan association.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07973 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 22, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Mark Saliterman, Minnetonka, Minnesota; Michael Morton, Shorewood, Minnesota; Christopher Morton, Chanhassen, Minnesota; Lorilee Morton Wright, Shorewood, Minnesota; Julianne Morton, Chanhassen, Minnesota; and Christopher Morton Trust under Bernard and Margaret Morton GRAT agreement dated 1/1/1996; Mark Saliterman and Christopher Morton co-trustees, the Julianne Morton Samuelson Trust under Bernard and Margaret Morton GRAT agreement dated 1/1/1996; Mark Saliterman and Julianne Samuelson co-trustees, the Michael Morton Trust under Bernard and Margaret Morton GRAT agreement dated 1/1/1996; Mark Saliterman and Michael Morton co-trustees, and the Lorilee Morton Wright Trust under Bernard and Margaret Morton GRAT agreement dated 1/1/1996; Mark Saliterman and Lorilee Wright co-trustees, as members of the Morton family group; to acquire voting shares of Vision Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Vision Bank, both in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.

    2. Theodore J. Hofer Family Trust, Freeman, South Dakota (Emily M. Hofer, Freeman, South Dakota, Trustee), and Emily M. Hofer, individually and as trustee of the Theodore J. Hofer Family Trust and the Cynthia L. Hofer Living Trust, Freeman, South Dakota; to retain voting shares of H & W Holding Company, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Merchants State Bank, both in Freeman, South Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07974 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR 4006, FR 4008, FR 4013, FR 4014, or Reg H-1 by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposals

    The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, Without Revision, of the Following Reports

    1. Report title: Request for Extension of Time to Dispose of Assets Acquired in Satisfaction of Debts Previously Contracted.

    Agency form number: FR 4006.

    OMB control number: 7100-0129.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Reporters: Bank Holding Companies (BHCs).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 325.

    Estimated average hours per response: 5 hours.

    Number of respondents: 65.

    General description of report: The FR 4006 is authorized pursuant to sections 4(a) and 4(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act), (12 U.S.C. 1843(a), (c)(2)), and the Board's Regulation Y, (12 CFR 225.22(d) and 225.140). Section 4(a) of the BHC Act generally prohibits a BHC from acquiring voting shares of a nonbank company (12 U.S.C. 1843(a)). However, section 4(c)(2) of the BHC Act provides an exception to this general rule and permits BHCs to hold shares acquired in satisfaction of a debt previously contracted in good faith for two years from the date on which they were acquired. Id. at § 1843(c)(2). In addition, the Board is authorized to extend the two year period under certain circumstances upon application from a BHC. Id. The Board's Regulation Y extends this prohibition and exception to assets acquired in satisfaction of a debt previously contracted (12 CFR 225.140) and provides procedures for such exceptions. (12 CFR 225.22(d)(1)). The FR 4006 is required to obtain the benefit of being permitted to retain ownership of voting securities or assets acquired through foreclosure in the ordinary course of collection a debt previously contracted for more than two years. Individual respondent information is generally not given confidential treatment. However, a respondent may request that the information be kept confidential on a case-by-case basis. If a respondent requests confidential treatment, the Board will determine whether the information is entitled to confidential treatment on an ad hoc basis in connection with such request.

    Abstract: A BHC that acquired voting securities or assets through foreclosure in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted may not retain ownership of those shares or assets for more than two years without prior Federal Reserve approval. There is no formal reporting form and each request for extension must be filed at the appropriate Reserve Bank of the BHC. The Federal Reserve uses the information provided in the request to fulfill its statutory obligation to supervise BHCs.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to extend, without revision, the FR 4006 information collection.

    2. Report title: Stock Redemption Notification.

    Agency form number: FR 4008.

    OMB control number: 7100-0131.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: BHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 155 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 15.5 hours.

    Number of respondents: 10.

    General description of report: The FR 4008 is authorized pursuant to sections 5(b) and (c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(b) and (c)) and the Board's Regulation Y (CFR 225.4). Sections 5(b) and (c) of the BHC Act generally authorize the Board to issue regulations and orders that are necessary to administer and carry out the purposes of the BHC Act and prevent evasions thereof and to require BHCs to submit reports to the Board to keep the Board informed about their financial condition, systems for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risks, transactions with depository institution subsidiaries, and compliance with the BHC Act, any other Federal law that the Board has specific jurisdiction to enforce, and (other than in the case of an insured depository institution or functionally regulated subsidiary) any other applicable provision of Federal law. 12 U.S.C. 1844(b) and (c). The Board's Regulation Y requires BHCs, in certain circumstances, to file with the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank prior written notice before purchasing or redeeming their equity securities. (12 CFR 225.4(b)). The FR 4008 is required for some BHCs to obtain the benefit of being able to purchase or redeem their equity securities. The individual respondent information in a stock redemption notice is generally not considered confidential. However, a respondent may request that the information be kept confidential on a case-by-case basis. If a respondent requests confidentiality, the Board will determine whether the information is entitled to confidential treatment on an ad hoc basis in connection with such request.

    Abstract: The Bank Holding Company Act and the Board's Regulation Y generally require a BHC to seek prior Federal Reserve approval before purchasing or redeeming its equity securities. Given that a BHC is exempt from this requirement if it meets certain financial, managerial, and supervisory standards, only a small portion of proposed stock redemptions actually require the prior approval of the Federal Reserve. There is no formal reporting form. The Federal Reserve uses the information provided in the redemption notice to fulfill its statutory obligation to supervise BHCs.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to extend, without revision, the FR 4008 information collection.

    3. Report title: Notice Claiming Status as an Exempt Transfer Agent.

    Agency form number: FR 4013.

    OMB control number: 7100-0137.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: Banks, BHCs, savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), and certain trust companies.

    Annual reporting hours: 20 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 2 hours.

    Number of respondents: 10.

    General description of report: The FR 4013 is mandatory and authorized pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the SEA) as amended in 1975, 15 U.S.C. 78q-1, 17 CFR 240.17Ad-4, and 12 CFR. 208.31 and 225.4(d). Section 17A(a)(2)(A)(i) of the SEA, 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(2)(A)(i), directs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to use its authority under the SEA “to facilitate the establishment of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions in securities.” Pursuant to this Congressional directive, the SEC promulgated regulations governing the performance of transfer agent functions by registered transfer agents. See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-2, 240.17Ad-3, and 240.17Ad-6(a)(1) through (7) and (11). SEC Rule 17Ad-4 exempts certain low-volume transfer agents from certain of these regulations provided that the transfer agent files a notice with its appropriate regulatory agency certifying that it qualifies for the exemption. 17 CFR. 240.17Ad-4. Pursuant to the SEA, the SEC's transfer agent rules as well as the low-volume transfer agent exemption are applicable to all registered transfer agents, including those regulated by the Board. See Section 17A(d)(1) of the SEA, 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(d)(1). The Board's regulations further provide that Board-regulated transfer agents are subject to the SEC's transfer agent rules, including the low-volume transfer agent exemption. See 12 CFR 208.31(b) (applicable to state member bank transfer agents); 12 CFR 225.4(d) (providing that the Board's regulations governing state member bank transfer agents are equally applicable to BHCs and certain nonbank subsidiaries that act as transfer agents); 12 CFR 238.4(b) (requiring reports from SLHCs). Because the information regarding a transfer agent's volume of transactions is public information through the filing and publication of the agents' Form TA-2 with the SEC, the individual respondent data collected by the FR 4013 is not confidential.

    Abstract: Banks, BHCs, SLHCs, and trust companies subject to the Federal Reserve's supervision that are low-volume transfer agents voluntarily file the notice on occasion with the Federal Reserve. Transfer agents are institutions that provide securities transfer, registration, monitoring, and other specified services on behalf of securities issuers. The purpose of the notice, which is effective until the agent withdraws it, is to claim exemption from certain rules and regulations of the SEC. The Federal Reserve uses the notices for supervisory purposes because the SEC has assigned to the Federal Reserve responsibility for collecting the notices and verifying their accuracy through examinations of the respondents. There is no formal reporting form and each notice is filed as a letter.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to extend, without revision, the FR 4013 information collection.

    4. Report title: Investment in Bank Premises Notification.

    Agency form number: FR 4014.

    OMB control number: 7100-0139.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: State member banks (SMBs).

    Annual reporting hours: 9 hours (rounded to the nearest hour).

    Estimated average hours per response: 30 minutes.

    Number of respondents: 5.

    General description of report: Section 24A(a) of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) requires that SMBs obtain prior Board approval before investing in bank premises that exceed certain statutory thresholds (12 U.S.C. 371d(a)). The FR 4014 is required to obtain a benefit because banks wanting to make an investment in bank premises that exceed a certain threshold are required to notify the Federal Reserve. The information collected is not considered confidential. However, an SMB may request that a report or document not be disclosed to the public and be held confidential by the Board. Should an SMB request confidential treatment of such information, the question of whether the information is entitled to confidential treatment must be determined on an ad hoc basis in connection with such request.

    Abstract: The FRA requires SMBs to seek prior Federal Reserve approval before making an investment in bank premises that exceeds certain thresholds. There is no formal reporting form, and each required request for prior approval must be filed as a notification with the appropriate Reserve Bank of the SMB. The Federal Reserve uses the information provided in the notice to fulfill its statutory obligation to supervise SMBs.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to extend, without revision, the FR 4014 information collection.

    5. Report title: Reports Related to Securities Issued by State Member Banks as Required by Regulation H.

    Agency form number: Reg H-1.

    OMB control number: 7100-0091.

    Frequency: Annually, Quarterly, and on occasion.

    Reporters: SMBs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 264.

    Estimated average hours per response: 5.17.

    Number of respondents: 3.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant to sections 12(i) and 23(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 781(i) and 78w (a)(1)) and the Board's Regulation H (12 CFR 208.36). The information collected is not given confidential treatment. However, a state member bank make request that a report or document not be disclosed to the public and be held confidential by the Federal Reserve, (12 CFR 208.36(d). All such requests for confidential treatment will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

    Abstract: The Federal Reserve's Regulation H requires certain SMBs to submit information relating to their securities to the Federal Reserve on the same forms that bank holding companies and nonbank entities use to submit similar information to the SEC. The information is primarily used for public disclosure and is available to the public upon request.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to extend, without revision, the Reg H-1 information collection.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07991 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15BFV] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review—A Study of Viral Persistence in Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) Survivors; Correction AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a document in the Federal Register of April 1, 2016, concerning request for comments on Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review—A Study of Viral Persistence in Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) Survivors. The document contained an incorrect total estimate for public burden hours.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 639-4965; email: [email protected]

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 1, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-07424, on page 18854, in the third column (last paragraph), correct the “burden hours requested” to read:

    The total burden hours requested for the research study in Sierra Leone is 1,836 hours.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. 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. 2016-07992 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-0221-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-0221-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Title X Family Planning Annual Report.

    Abstract: The Office of Population Affairs within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health seeks to renew the currently approved Family Planning Annual Report (FPAR) data collection and reporting tool (OMB No. 0990-0221). This annual reporting requirement is for family planning services delivery projects authorized and funded by the Title X Family Planning Program [“Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs” (Public Law 91-572)], which was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act (Section 1001; 42 U.S.C. 300). The FPAR data collection and reporting tool remains unchanged in this request to renew OMB approval to collect essential, annual data from Title X grantees.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The Title X Family Planning Program (“Title X program” or “program”) is the only Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services (e.g., screening for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and human immunodeficiency virus). By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families (Section 1006[c] of Title X of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300). The Office of Population Affairs (OPA) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health administers the Title X program.

    Annual submission of the FPAR is required of all Title X family planning services grantees for purposes of monitoring and reporting program performance (45 CFR part 74 and 45 CFR part 92). The FPAR is the only source of annual, uniform reporting by all grantees funded under Section 1001 of the Title X Public Health Service Act. The FPAR provides consistent, national-level data on the Title X Family Planning program and its users that allow OPA to assemble comparable and relevant program data to answer questions about the characteristics of the population served, use of services offered, composition of revenues that complement Title X funds, and impact of the program on key health outcomes.

    Likely Respondents: Respondents for this annual reporting requirement are centers that receive funding directly from OPA for family planning services authorized and funded under the Title X Family Planning Program [“Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs” (Pub. L. 91-572)], which was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act (Section 1001 of Title X of the Public Health Service Act, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 300).

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average annualized burden per
  • response (hours)
  • Annualized total burden (hours)
    Grantees FPAR 93 grantees 1 36 3,348 Totals 93 3,348

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Darius Taylor, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07964 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Notice of the Redesignation of the Service Delivery Area for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This final notice advises the public that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has decided to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) service delivery area for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) of Massachusetts pursuant to 42 CFR 136.22. The Aquinnah service delivery area previously covered Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County in the State of Massachusetts. The expanded service delivery area includes counties of Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Dukes Counties in the State of Massachusetts. The sole purpose of this expansion is to authorize Aquinnah to cover additional tribal members and beneficiaries under Aquinnah's PRC program using the existing Federal allocation for PRC funds.

    DATES:

    The effective date of expansion will be 60 days from the date of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terri Schmidt, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone (301) 443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).

    Background: The Indian Health Service (IHS) currently provides services under regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A through C. Subpart C defines a Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA), now referred to as a Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) service delivery area, as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the area. Residence in a PRC service delivery area by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12, creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for services. Services needed but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the person's relative medical priority, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.

    As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRC service delivery area shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRC service delivery area, the Secretary may from time to time, redesignate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRC service delivery area. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any redesignation is made. The criteria are as follows:

    (1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;

    (2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the tribe;

    (3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and

    (4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC.

    Additionally, the regulations require that any redesignation of a PRC service delivery area must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). In compliance with this requirement, IHS published a proposed notice of redesignation and requested public comments on August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51281). Aquinnah requested that IHS expand the Aquinnah service delivery area to include Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk Counties in the State of Massachusetts.

    In support of this expansion, IHS adopts the following findings of the Aquinnah Tribe:

    (1) By expanding, the Tribe's estimated current eligible population will be increased by 268.

    (2) The Tribe has determined these 268 individuals are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.

    (3) The expanded area including Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Suffolk Counties in the State of Massachusetts are across the Bay from Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County, Massachusetts.

    (4) The Tribal members located in these counties currently do not use the Indian health system for their health care needs.

    Aquinnah will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated by IHS to Aquinnah to provide services to its members residing in these counties nor should this expansion be construed to have any present or future effect on the allocation of resources between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and Aquinnah.

    Public Comments: The Agency only received comments from the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (Mashpee). Mashpee incorporated several letters into its submission. Through these comments and letters, Mashpee indicated that it does not support the proposed redesignation and articulated several objections to the expansion, which IHS addresses below:

    Comment: IHS has failed to meet its legal requirement to meaningfully consult with the Mashpee Tribe as the only other Tribal governing body within the proposed redesignated SDA in accordance with 42 CFR 136.22(b).

    Response: IHS disagrees. IHS consulted with the Mashpee Tribe regarding this proposed expansion. As Mashpee noted in its own submission, IHS engaged in government-to-government discussions and correspondence on this issue. IHS provided its answers to the Mashpee Tribe's questions in a letter from Deputy Director McSwain to Mashpee Chairman Cromwell, dated October 5, 2015. While Mashpee questions the adequacy of IHS's answers, they nonetheless demonstrate that IHS has engaged in meaningful consultation with Mashpee with respect to this expansion. Additionally, the opportunity to submit comments on a proposed notice is a form of consultation. IHS recognizes that Mashpee has concerns with the expansion and does not support the IHS decisions in this regard. IHS is not required, after consultation with a Tribe, to adopt the specific position of the Mashpee Tribe.

    Comment: IHS has no legal authority to contravene the clear legal mandate of the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1987.

    Response: IHS agrees with the Mashpee Tribe that the Agency cannot contravene the Settlement Act, but the Agency does not believe the expansion is prohibited by the Settlement Act. It is HHS's understanding that the Settlement Act is not implemented by Department of the Interior (DOI) as a limitation for DOI programs and services. Accordingly, after conferring with DOI regarding its position, IHS has decided to revisit the expansion issue. The establishment of PRC service delivery areas is an administrative function of IHS, governed by the regulations at 42 CFR 136.22. Historically, IHS has established service delivery areas in accordance with our understanding of Congressional intent, for example as evidenced by geographically designated areas identified in settlement acts, such as Public Law 100-95. IHS does not intend to abandon that practice. Under PRC regulations, however, IHS has preserved flexibility to redesignate areas as appropriate for inclusion in or exclusion from PRC service delivery. One of the criteria for such redesignations is the geographic proximity of the expanded area to the existing reservation or service delivery area. In the few circumstances where it has arisen, IHS has aligned geographic proximity with Congressional findings of “on or near”.

    Here, IHS proposed to expand a PRC delivery area beyond the geographic description of “on or near” that Congress set forth in a settlement or recognition act. IHS offered stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the departure from historic practice by issuing a notice of proposed expansion prior to issuing a final notice to ascertain whether the departure is disruptive to tribes that have previously relied on IHS's historic practice. IHS did not receive comments that identify a detrimental reliance interest. Accordingly, when considering the geographic proximity of the proposed expansion area under 42 CFR 136.22 to the existing reservation (or service delivery area), IHS will no longer rigidly apply a Congressional finding of “on or near” as prohibiting PRC delivery area expansion in considering expansion requests. Although this is a change in the implementation of the redesignation authority found at 42 CFR 136.22, no change is necessary to the text of the regulation itself.

    In making this change, however, IHS notes that Congress has, at times, statutorily enacted PRC service delivery areas for some tribes or for entire States. See, e.g. 25 U.S.C. 1678 (designating the entire State of Arizona). Those enactments may limit changes in PRC delivery area boundaries in some circumstances. Congress did not specifically establish a PRC service delivery area for Aquinnah in the Settlement Act; IHS administratively established this area through its regulations. While IHS chose to establish and limit the Aquinnah PRC service delivery area consistent with the language of the Act, in keeping with our current understanding of DOI practices, the language of the Act does not have to be read as preventing IHS from exercising its administrative discretion to expand or reduce that initially established area going forward. Indeed, IHS has already interpreted its authority to permit the establishment of PRC service delivery areas that go beyond what may otherwise be considered “on or near” a reservation. For example, IHS has administratively designated entire states as PRC service delivery areas, even though all parts of such states were not necessarily “on or near” a reservation. Nor does there appear to be any legislative history of the Act that would suggest that Congress intended the language of Section 1771 to be a limitation on IHS programs or administrative flexibility. There is also no evidence to suggest that Congress intended to limit eligibility for PRC services. Unless IHS administratively expands the PRC service delivery, however, Aquinnah cannot cover hundreds of its tribal members under PRC. IHS has therefore revisited Aquinnah's request and believes that unique circumstances are present that warrant expanding the Aquinnah PRC service delivery area beyond the general geographic area identified by Congress in Public Law 100-95 as “on or near”. These unique circumstances include the factors identified by the BIA in recognizing the Aquinnah prior to the enactment of Public Law 100-95, BIA's understanding of the settlement language, and Dukes County's status as an island and the significant number of Aquinnah's members who reside permanently off of the island and continue to maintain close economic and social ties with the Aquinnah.

    The BIA recognized the Aquinnah Tribe as an Indian Tribe eligible for Federal benefits on February 10, 1987, pursuant to a notice published in the Federal Register. See 52 FR 4193. As part of its findings, BIA concluded “that the [Aquinnah] have an extensive and interrelated communication network connecting those Wampanoag members in Gay Head and elsewhere on Martha's Vineyard with each other and with those members living off-island.” The BIA further concluded that the Tribal government “maintained political influence and/or authority over both its resident and non-resident members.” Aquinnah has a significant number of members who are not residents of Dukes County. According to Aquinnah's estimates, 268 enrolled Aquinnah members are non-residents who remain actively involved with the Tribe, reside in Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk Counties and are not currently eligible for PRC care.

    Aquinnah provides limited direct services to its Tribal members by operating a small clinic in Dukes County that is open once or twice a month. To access direct care services, non-residents must travel over one and a half hours via ferry and car to receive the health care offered at the clinic. As a consequence, most non-residents do not seek care on the island.

    Comment: The Mashpee tribe commented that the publication of the notice is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

    Response: IHS disagrees. IHS's decision to publish a notice of the intention to expand the Aquinnah PRC service delivery area was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. IHS rules expressly authorize IHS to expand a PRC service delivery area through a notice issued pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and that process has been followed here. IHS is implementing a change in the way it reviews PRC delivery expansion requests, but that change is fully consistent with the existing language in the rules.

    Comment: 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6) provides that “the [CHSDA] shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation, and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation.” As explained in the 2011 Declination Letter, “since the county is coextensive with the Atlantic Ocean island of Martha's Vineyard, there is no adjacent county to consider for inclusion in the CHSDA.”

    Response: The comment references the starting point for establishing a PRC service delivery area. As noted above, IHS retains the administrative discretion to redesignate PRC service delivery areas after they are initially designated. The criteria for expansion requires IHS to consider geographic proximity, but it does not require IHS to limit expansion to adjacent counties.

    Purchased/Referred Care Service Delivery Areas and Service Delivery Areas Tribe/Reservation County/State Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona Pinal, AZ. Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Polk, TX.1 Alaska Entire State.2 Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Aroostook Band of Micmacs Aroostook, ME.3 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Daniels, MT, McCone, MT, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT, Valley, MT. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Ashland, WI, Iron, WI. Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Chippewa, MI. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Glacier, MT, Pondera, MT. Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah (4) Burns Paiute Tribe Harney, OR. California Entire State, except for the counties listed in the footnote.5 Catawba Indian Nation All Counties in SC 6, Cabarrus, NC, Cleveland, NC, Gaston, NC, Mecklenburg, NC, Rutherford, NC, Union, NC. Cayuga Nation Allegany, NY 7, Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Haakon, SD, Meade, SD, Perkins, SD, Potter, SD, Stanley, SD, Sully, SD, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana Chouteau, MT, Hill, MT, Liberty, MT. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana St. Mary Parish, LA. Cocopah Tribe of Arizona Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Coeur D'Alene Tribe Benewah, ID, Kootenai, ID, Latah, ID, Spokane, WA, Whitman, WA. Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California La Paz, AZ, Riverside, CA, San Bernardino, CA, Yuma, AZ. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Flathead, MT, Lake, MT, Missoula, MT, Sanders, MT. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Klickitat, WA, Lewis, WA, Skamania, WA 8, Yakima, WA. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon Benton, OR 9, Clackamas, OR, Lane, OR,
  • Lincoln, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Multnomah, OR, Polk, OR, Tillamook, OR, Washington, OR, Yam Hill, OR.
  • Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Grays Harbor, WA, Lewis, WA, Thurston, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington Chelan, WA 10, Douglas, WA, Ferry, WA, Grant, WA, Lincoln, WA, Okanogan, WA, Stevens, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Coos, OR 11, Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah Nevada, Juab, UT, Toole, UT. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Polk, OR 12, Washington, OR, Marion, OR,
  • Yamhill, OR, Tillamook, OR, Multnomah, OR.
  • Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Umatilla, OR, Union, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Clackamas, OR, Jefferson, OR, Linn, OR,
  • Marion, OR, Wasco, OR.
  • Coquille Indian Tribe Coos, OR, Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Lane, OR. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Allen Parish, LA, Elton, LA.13 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Coos, OR 14, Deshutes, OR, Douglas, OR,
  • Jackson, OR, Josephine, OR, Klamath, OR, Lane, OR.
  • Cowlitz Indian Tribe Clark, WA, Cowlitz, WA, King, WA, Lewis, WA, Pierce, WA, Skamania, WA, Thurston, WA, Columbia, OR 15, Kittitas, WA, Wahkiakum, WA. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hand, SD, Hughes, SD, Hyde, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Crow Tribe of Montana Big Horn, MT, Carbon, MT, Treasure, MT 16, Yellowstone, MT, Big Horn, WY, Sheridan, WY. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Cherokee, NC, Graham, NC, Haywood, NC, Jackson, NC, Swain, NC. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Moody, SD. Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI, Marinette, WI, Oconto, WI. Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana Blaine, MT, Phillips, MT. Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon Nevada, Malheur, OR. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada Nevada, Mohave, AZ, San Bernardino, CA. Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Antrim, MI 17, Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI,
  • Grand Traverse, MI, Leelanau, MI, Manistee, MI.
  • Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan Delta, MI, Menominee, MI. Haskell Indian Health Center Douglas, KS.18 Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ. Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Adams, WI 19, Clark, WI, Columbia, WI, Crawford, WI, Dane, WI, Eau Claire, WI, Houston, MN, Jackson, WI, Juneau, WI, La Crosse, WI, Marathon, WI, Monroe, WI, Sauk, WI, Shawano, WI, Vernon, WI, Wood, WI. Hoh Indian Tribe Jefferson, WA. Hopi Tribe of Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Aroostook, ME.20 Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Yavapai, AZ. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Doniphan, KS, Richardson, NE. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Grand Parish, LA 21, LaSalle Parish, LA, Rapides Parish, LA. Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico Archuleta, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM. Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Kane, UT. Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation Pend Oreille, WA, Spokane, WA. Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan Baraga, MI, Houghton, MI, Ontonagon, MI. Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Maverick, TX.22 Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Brown, KS, Jackson, KS. Klamath Tribes Klamath, OR.23 Koi Nation of Northern California (formerly known as Lower Lake Rancheria, California) Lake, CA, Sonoma, CA.24 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Boundary, ID. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Sawyer, WI. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin. Iron, WI, Oneida, WI, Vilas, WI. Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan Gogebic, MI. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan Kent, MI 25, Muskegon, MI, Newaygo, MI,
  • Oceana, MI, Ottawa, MI, Manistee, MI, Mason, MI, Wexford, MI, Lake, MI.
  • Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Alcona, MI 25, Alger, MI, Alpena, MI, Antrim, MI, Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Cheboygan, MI, Chippewa, MI, Crawford, MI, Delta, MI, Emmet, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Iosco, MI, Kalkaska, MI, Leelanau, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Manistee, MI, Missaukee, MI, Montmorency, MI, Ogemaw, MI, Oscoda, MI, Otsego, MI, Presque Isle, MI, Schoolcraft, MI, Roscommon, MI, Wexford, MI. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hughes, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Lower Elwha Tribal Community Clallam, WA. Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Redwood, MN, Renville, MN. Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation Whatcom, WA. Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation Clallam, WA. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe New London, CT.26 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.27 Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan Allegan, MI 28, Barry, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Langlade, WI, Menominee, WI, Oconto, WI, Shawano, WI. Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico Chaves, NM, Lincoln, NM, Otero, NM. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Hendry, FL. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) Itasca, MN, Koochiching, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Fond du Lac Band Carlton, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Grand Portage Band Cook, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Leech Lake Band Beltrami, MN, Cass, MN, Hubbard, MN, Itasca, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Mille Lacs Band Aitkin, MN, Kanebec, MN, Mille Lacs, MN, Pine, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota White Earth Band Becker, MN, Clearwater, MN, Mahnomen, MN, Norman, MN, Polk, MN. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Attala, MS, Jasper, MS 29, Jones, MS, Kemper, MS, Leake, MS, Neshoba, MS, Newton, MS, Noxubee, MS 29, Scott, MS 30, Winston, MS. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut Fairfield, CT, Hartford, CT, Litchfield, CT, Middlesex, CT, New Haven, CT, New London, CT, Tolland, CT, Windham, CT. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe King, WA, Pierce, WA. Narragansett Indian Tribe Washington, RI.31 Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah Apache, AZ, Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM,
  • Coconino, AZ, Kane, UT, McKinley, NM, Montezuma, CO, Navajo, AZ, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT, Socorro, NM, Valencia, NM.
  • Nevada Entire State.32 Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater, ID, Idaho, ID, Latah, ID, Lewis, ID, Nez Perce, ID. Nisqually Indian Tribe Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Nooksack Indian Tribe Whatcom, WA. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana Big Horn, MT, Carter, MT 33, Rosebud, MT. Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation Box Elder, UT.34 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan Allegan, MI 35, Barry, MI, Branch, MI, Calhoun, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Oglala Sioux Tribe Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Custer, SD, Dawes, NE, Fall River, SD, Jackson, SD 36, Mellete, SD, Pennington, SD, Shannon, SD, Sheridan, NE, Todd, SD. Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM. Oklahoma Entire State.37 Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Burt, NE, Cuming, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE. Oneida Nation of New York Chenango, NY, Cortland, NY, Herkimer, NY, Madison, NY, Oneida, NY, Onondaga, NY. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Brown, WI, Outagamie, WI. Onondaga Nation Onondaga, NY. Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Iron, UT 38 Millard, UT, Sevier, UT, Washington, UT. Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Pima, AZ.39 Passamaquoddy Tribe Aroostook, ME 4041, Washington, ME. Penobscot Nation Aroostook, ME 40, Penobscot, ME. Poarch Band of Creeks Baldwin, AL 42, Elmore, AL, Escambia, AL, Mobile, AL, Monroe, AL, Escambia, FL. Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana Allegan, MI 43, Berrien, MI, Cass, MI, Elkhart, IN, Kosciusko, IN, La Porte, IN, Marshall, IN, St. Joseph, IN, Starke, IN, Van Buren, MI. Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Boyd, NE 44, Burt, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, NE, Hall, NE, Holt, NE, Knox, NE, Lancaster, NE, Madison, NE, Platte, NE, Pottawattomie, IA, Sarpy, NE, Stanton, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Kitsap, WA. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation Jackson, KS. Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Goodhue, MN. Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico Cibola, NM. Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Torrance, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Sandoval, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico Taos, NM. Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico Colfax, NM, Taos, NM. Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation King, WA, Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California and Arizona Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Quinault Indian Nation Grays Harbor, WA, Jefferson, WA. Rapid City, South Dakota Pennington, SD.45 Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Bayfield, WI. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota Beltrami, MN, Clearwater, MN, Koochiching, MN, Lake of the Woods, MN, Marshall, MN, Pennington, MN, Polk, MN, Roseau, MN. Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Gregory, SD, Lyman, SD, Mellette, SD, Todd, SD, Tripp, SD. Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Richardson, NE. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Tama, IA. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Arenac, MI 46, Clare, MI, Isabella, MI, Midland, MI, Missaukee, MI. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Franklin, NY, St. Lawrence, NY. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Samish Indian Nation Clallam, WA 47, Island, WA, Jefferson, WA, King, WA, Kitsap, WA, Pierce, WA, San Juan, WA, Skagit, WA, Snohomish, WA, Whatcom, WA. San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Cochise, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Pinal, AZ. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona Coconino, AZ, San Juan, UT. Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska Bon Homme, SD, Knox, NE. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Snohomish, WA, Skagit, WA. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Alger, MI 48, Chippewa, MI, Delta, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Marquette, MI, Schoolcraft, MI. Seminole Tribe of Florida Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Glades, FL, Hendry, FL. Seneca Nation of Indians Allegany, NY, Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota Scott, MN. Shinnecock Indian Nation Nassau, NY 49, Suffolk, NY. Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Pacific, WA. Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Bannock, ID, Bingham, ID, Caribou, ID, Lemhi, ID 50, Power, ID. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada Nevada, Owyhee, ID. Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota Codington, SD, Day, SD, Grant, SD, Marshall, SD, Richland, ND, Roberts, SD, Sargent, ND, Traverse, MN. Skokomish Indian Tribe Mason, WA. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah Tooele, UT. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe King, WA 51, Snohomish, WA, Pierce, WA, Island, WA, Mason, WA. Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI. Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Archuleta, CO, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, San Juan, NM. Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Benson, ND, Eddy, ND, Nelson, ND, Ramsey, ND. Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation Ferry, WA, Lincoln, WA, Stevens, WA. Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation Mason, WA. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Barron, WI, Burnett, WI, Pine, MN, Polk, WI, Washburn, WI. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota Adams, ND, Campbell, SD, Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Emmons, ND, Grant, ND, Morton, ND, Perkins, SD, Sioux, ND, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington Snohomish, WA. Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin Menominee, WI, Shawano, WI. Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation Kitsap, WA. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Skagit, WA. Tejon Indian Tribe Kern, CA.52 Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota Dunn, ND, Mercer, ND, McKenzie, ND, McLean, ND, Mountrail, ND, Ward, ND. Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pima, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Genesee, NY, Erie, NY, Niagara, NY. Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Gila, AZ. Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana Divide, ND 53, McKenzie, ND, Williams, ND, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT. Tulalip Tribes of Washington Snohomish, WA. Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe Avoyelles, LA, Rapides, LA.54 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota Rolette, ND. Tuscarora Nation Niagara, NY. Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Chippewa, MN, Yellow Medicine, MN. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Skagit, WA. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah Carbon, UT, Daggett, UT, Duchesne, UT, Emery, UT, Grand, UT, Rio Blanco, CO, Summit, UT, Uintah, UT, Utah, UT, Wasatch, UT. Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah Apache, AZ, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Dukes, MA 55, Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.56 Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California Nevada, California except for the counties listed in footnote. White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Wilton Rancheria, California Sacramento, CA.57 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Dakota, NE, Dixon, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Bon Homme, SD, Boyd, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, SD, Gregory, SD, Hutchinson, SD, Knox, NE. Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona Yavapai, AZ. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Yavapai, AZ. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas El Paso, TX.1 Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico Apache, AZ, Cibola, NM, McKinley, NM, Valencia, NM. 1 Public Law 100-89, Restoration Act for Ysleta Del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas establishes service areas for “members of the Tribe” by sections 101(3) and 105(a) for the Pueblo and sections 201(3) and 206(a) respectively. 2 Entire State of Alaska is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(1)). 3 Aroostook Band of Micmacs was recognized by Congress on November 26, 1991, through the Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act. Aroostook County, ME, was defined as the SDA. 4 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah (Pub. L. 88-358). 5 Entire State of California, excluding the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Kern, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, and Ventura, is designated a CHSDA (25 U.S.C. 1680). 6 The counties were recognized after the January 1984 CHSDA FRN was published, in accordance with Pub. L. 103-116, Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993, dated October 27, 1993. 7 There is no reservation for the Cayuga Nation; the service delivery area consists of those counties identified by the Cayuga Nation. 8 Skamania County, WA, has historically been a part of the Yakama Service Unit population since 1979. 9 In order to carry out the Congressional intent of the Siletz Restoration Act, Pub. L. 95-195, as expressed in H. Report No. 95-623, at page 4, members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon residing in these counties are eligible for contract health services. 10 Chelan County, WA, has historically been a part of the Colville Service Unit population since 1970. 11 Pursuant to Pub. L. 98-481 (H. Rept. No. 98-904), Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Restoration Act, members of the Tribe residing in these counties were specified as eligible for Federal services and benefits without regard to the existence of a Federal Indian reservation. 12 The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon were recognized by Pub. L. 98-165 which was signed into law on November 22, 1983, and provides for eligibility in these six counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 13 The CHSDA for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana was expanded administratively by the Director, IHS, through regulation (42 CFR 136.22(6)) to include city limits of Elton, LA. 14 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians recognized by Pub. L. 97-391, signed into law on December 29, 1983. House Rept. No. 97-862 designates Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties as a service area without regard to the existence of a reservation. The IHS later administratively expanded the CHSDA to include the counties of Coos, OR, Deshutes, OR, Klamath, OR, and Lane, OR. 15 The Cowlitz Indian Tribe was recognized in July 2002 as documented at 67 FR 46329, July 12, 2002. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. The CHSDA was administratively expanded to included Columbia County, OR, Kittitas, WA, and Wahkiakum County, WA, as published at 67884 FR December 21, 2009. 16 Treasure County, MT, has historically been a part of the Crow Service Unit population. 17 The counties listed have historically been a part of the Grand Traverse Service Unit population since 1980. 18 Haskell Indian Health Center has historically been a part of Kansas Service Unit since 1979. Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Haskell Indian Health Center (H. Rept. No. 95-392). 19 CHSDA counties for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(5)). Dane County, WI, was added to the reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1986. 20 Public Law 97-428 provides that any member of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians in or around the Town of Houlton shall be eligible without regard to existence of a reservation. 21 The Jena Band of Choctaw Indian was Federally acknowledged as documented at 60 FR 28480, May 31, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 22 Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, formerly known as the Texas Band of Kickapoo, was recognized by Pub. L. 97-429, signed into law on January 8, 1983. The Act provides for eligibility for Kickapoo Tribal members residing in Maverick County without regard to the existence of a reservation. 23 The Klamath Indian Tribe Restoration Act (Pub. L. 99-398, Sec. 2(2)) states that for the purpose of Federal services and benefits “members of the tribe residing in Klamath County shall be deemed to be residing in or near a reservation”. 24 The Koi Nation of Northern California, formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, was reaffirmed by the Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on December 29, 2000. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRC SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 25 The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act recognized the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Pursuant to Pub. L. 103-324, Sec.4(b) the counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 26 Mashantucket Pequot Indian Claims Settlement Act, Pub. L. 98-134, signed into law on October 18, 1983, provides a reservation for the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe in New London County, CT. 27 The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe was recognized in February 2007, as documented at 72 FR 8007, February 22, 2007. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 28 The Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan was recognized in October 1998, as documented at 63 FR 56936, October 23, 1998. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 29 Members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians residing in Jasper and Noxubee Counties, MS, are eligible for contract health services; these two counties were inadvertently omitted from 42 CFR 136.22. 30 Scott County, MS, has historically been a part of the Choctaw Service Unit population since 1970. 31 The Narragansett Indian Tribe was recognized by Pub. L. 95-395, signed into law September 30, 1978. Lands in Washington County, RI, are now Federally restricted and the Bureau of Indian Affairs considers them as the Narragansett Indian Reservation. 32 Entire State of Nevada is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(2)). 33 Carter County, MT, has historically been a part of the Northern Cheyenne Service Unit population since 1979. 34 Land of Box Elder County, Utah, was taken into trust for the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation in 1986. 35 The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan, formerly known as the Huron Band of Potawatomi, Inc., was recognized in December 1995, as documented at 60 FR 66315, December 21, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 36 Washabaugh County, SD, merged and became part of Jackson County, SD, in 1983; both were/are CHSDA counties for the Oglala Sioux Tribe. 37 Entire State of Oklahoma is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(3)). 38 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act, Pub. L. 96-227, provides for the extension of services for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to these four counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 39 Legislative history (H.R. Report No. 95-1021) to Pub. L.95-375, Extension of Federal Benefits to Pascua Yaqui Indians, Arizona, expresses congressional intent that lands conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona pursuant to Act of October 8, 1964. (Pub. L. 88-350) shall be deemed a Federal Indian Reservation. 40 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide contract health services to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. 41 The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two reservations. The PRC SDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indian Township, ME, is Aroostook County, ME, and Washington County, ME. The PRC SDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Pleasant Point, ME, is Aroostook County ME, and Washington County, ME, south of State Route 9. 42 Counties in the Service Unit designated by Congress for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (see H. Rept. 98-886, June 29, 1984; Cong. Record, October 10, 1984, Pg. H11929). 43 Pub. L. 103-323 restored Federal recognition to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, in 1994 and identified counties to serve as the SDA. 44 The Ponca Restoration Act, Pub. L. 101-484, recognized members of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska in Boyd, Douglas, Knox, Madison or Lancaster counties of Nebraska or Charles Mix county of South Dakota as residing on or near a reservation. Pub. L. 104-109 made technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans and added Burt, Hall, Holt, Platte, Sarpy, Stanton, and Wayne counties of Nebraska and Pottawatomie and Woodbury counties of Iowa to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska SDA. 45 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility, rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Rapid City (S. Rept. No. 1154, FY 1967 Interior Approp. 89th Cong. 2d Sess.). 46 Historically part of Isabella Reservation Area for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and the Eastern Michigan Service Unit population since 1979. 47 The Samish Indian Tribe Nation was Federally acknowledged in April 1996 as documented at 61 FR 15825, April 9, 1996. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 48 CHSDA counties for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan, were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(4)). 49 The Shinnecock Indian Nation was Federally acknowledged in June 2010 as documented at 75 FR 34760, June 18, 2010. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 50 Lemhi County, ID, has historically been a part of the Fort Hall Service Unit population since 1979. 51 The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe was Federally acknowledged in August 1997 as documented at 62 FR 45864, August 29, 1997. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 52 On December 30, 2011 the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs reaffirmed the Federal recognition of the Tejon Indian Tribe. The county listed was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 53 The Secretary acting through the Service is directed to provide contract health services to Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians that reside in Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana, in Divide, Mackenzie, and Williams counties in the state of North Dakota and the adjoining counties of Richland, Roosevelt, and Sheridan in the state of Montana (Sec. 815, Pub. L. 94-437). 54 Rapides County, LA, has historically been a part of the Tunica Biloxi Service Unit population since 1982. 55 According to Pub. L. 100-95, Sec. 12, members of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) residing on Martha's Vineyard are deemed to be living on or near an Indian reservation for the purposes of eligibility for Federal services. 56 The counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRC SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. 57 The Wilton Rancheria, California had Federal recognition restored in July 2009 as documented at 74 FR 33468, July 13, 2009. Sacramento County, CA, was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA. Sacramento County was not covered when Congress originally established the State of California as a CHSDA excluding certain counties including Sacramento County (25 U.S.C. 1680).
    Dated: March 31, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07951 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Notification of a Public Teleconference on American Indian/Alaska Native Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-Spirit Health Issues AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In 2015, the Indian Health Service (IHS) sought public input in writing and in person through a Notice of Request for Information (80 FR 32167) and two meetings in the Washington, DC area to gather feedback on best practices to advance and promote the health needs of the American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-Spirit (LGBT2S) community (80 FR 43447 and 80 FR 51824). IHS is continuing to seek feedback from the LGBT2S community by holding a series of public teleconferences. In these teleconferences, participants will be asked to comment on several key dimensions of the health needs of the AI/AN LGBT2S community, including but not limited to the following questions:

    a. Are there effective models and best practices surrounding the health care of the LGBT2S community that should be considered for replication?

    b. What are the specific measures that could be used to track progress in improving the health of LGBT2S persons?

    c. How can IHS better engage with stakeholders around the implementation of improvements?

    d. Are there gaps or disparities in existing IHS services offered to LGBT2S persons?

    e. What additional information should the agency consider while developing plans to improve health care for the LGBT2S community?

    DATES:

    The first public teleconference will be held on May 5, 2016 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The teleconference will be conducted by telephone only. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the call-in information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Members of the public who wish to obtain further information regarding this public teleconference may contact Lisa Neel, MPH, Program Coordinator, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 08N34A, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone 301-443-4305. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to the public. The virtual meeting is available via teleconference line and will accommodate 200 people. Join the meeting by calling the toll free phone number at 800-857-9744 and providing the public participant passcode number: 3618057. Participants should call and connect 15 minutes prior to the meeting in order for logistics to be set up. Call 301-443-4305 or send an email to [email protected] with questions. 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. Members of the public may make statements during the teleconference to the extent time permits and file written statements with the agency for its consideration. In general, individuals or groups requesting to present an oral statement at a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Written statements should be submitted to Lisa Neel, MPH, Program Coordinator, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 08N34A, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: March 25, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07952 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; Tribal Management Grant Program

    Announcement Type: New and Competing Continuation.

    Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2016-IHS-TMD-0001.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.228.

    Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: June 8, 2016.

    Review Date: June 20-24, 2016.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 1, 2016.

    Signed Tribal Resolutions Due Date: June 8, 2016.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: June 8, 2016.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive grant applications for the Tribal Management Grant (TMG) program. This program is authorized under 25 U.S.C. 450h(b)(2) and 25 U.S.C. 450h(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Public Law (Pub. L.) 93-638, as amended. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.228.

    Background

    The TMG Program is a competitive grant program that is capacity building and developmental in nature and has been available for Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations (T/TO) since shortly after the passage of the ISDEAA in 1975. It was established to assist T/TO to prepare for assuming all or part of existing IHS programs, functions, services, and activities (PFSAs) and further develop and improve their health management capability. The TMG Program provides competitive grants to T/TO to establish goals and performance measures for current health programs; assess current management capacity to determine if new components are appropriate; analyze programs to determine if T/TO management is practicable; and develop infrastructure systems to manage or organize PFSAs.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS grant announcement is to announce the availability of the TMG Program to enhance and develop health management infrastructure and assist T/TO in assuming all or part of existing IHS PSFAs thro