Federal Register Vol. 81, No.68,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 68 (April 8, 2016)

Page Range20523-21221
FR Document

81_FR_68
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 20672 - Notice of Rescheduled Public Meetings for the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2017-2022PDF
81 FR 20720 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 20672 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 20525 - Importation of Fresh Andean Blackberry and Raspberry Fruit From Ecuador Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 20528 - Importation of Fresh Peppers From Ecuador Into the United StatesPDF
81 FR 20575 - Importation of Fresh Pitahaya Fruit From Ecuador Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 20669 - Notice of Realty Action: Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification of Public Lands in Uinta County, WYPDF
81 FR 20667 - Notice of Realty Action: Classification for Lease and Subsequent Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands (N-94234) for a Park in the Southwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NVPDF
81 FR 20606 - National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning RulePDF
81 FR 20591 - Texas Regulatory ProgramPDF
81 FR 20617 - National Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 20616 - National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other PopulationsPDF
81 FR 20598 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Measurement and Reporting of Condensable Particulate Matter EmissionsPDF
81 FR 20633 - Flubendiamide; Notice of Intent To Cancel Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
81 FR 20616 - Census Scientific Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 20543 - Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; MS; Redesignation of the DeSoto County, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to AttainmentPDF
81 FR 20535 - Trichloroethylene; Significant New Use RulePDF
81 FR 20606 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 20651 - Meeting Notice for the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood PartnershipsPDF
81 FR 20606 - Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of DirectorsPDF
81 FR 20619 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
81 FR 20639 - Submission for OMB Review; Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850PDF
81 FR 20638 - Information Collection; General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (GSA)PDF
81 FR 20617 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Max Home, LLC; Subzone 158F (Upholstered Furniture); Iuka and Fulton, MississippiPDF
81 FR 20618 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
81 FR 20674 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Second Modification Under The Clean Water ActPDF
81 FR 20633 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS; NOTICE OF AVAILABILITYPDF
81 FR 20545 - Fluazinam; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 20675 - Notice of Public Comment Period on the Presentation of the Forensic Science Discipline Review FrameworkPDF
81 FR 20633 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for February 2016PDF
81 FR 20651 - Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015; Request for Information Regarding Assessing Interoperability for MACRAPDF
81 FR 20693 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
81 FR 20719 - Meeting of the Council on Underserved Communities Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 20627 - Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Military Readiness Activities at the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, OregonPDF
81 FR 20622 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20623 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 20720 - List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International BoycottPDF
81 FR 20529 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, Gloucester, MAPDF
81 FR 20582 - Proposed Modification of the San Diego, CA, Class B Airspace Area; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20688 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Control Rod Drive Mechanism Motor Generator Set Field Relay ChangePDF
81 FR 20690 - Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, GeorgiaPDF
81 FR 20528 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Commercial Clothes Washers; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 20626 - Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 20671 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Enefit American Oil Utility Corridor Project, Uintah County, UtahPDF
81 FR 20550 - List of Fisheries for 2016PDF
81 FR 20625 - Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Closed Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 20719 - Renewal of the Regional Resource Stewardship Council CharterPDF
81 FR 20649 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20719 - Meeting of the Regional Resource Stewardship CouncilPDF
81 FR 20615 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas State Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 20673 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Financial Capability FormPDF
81 FR 20643 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20624 - Procurement List DeletionsPDF
81 FR 20637 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 20638 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 20624 - Procurement List Proposed Addition and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 20656 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 20658 - Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) Opportunity for Development of an Assay To Detect Genetic Markers Related to Elevated Serum Tryptase in Familial Tryptasemia and Mast Cell Activation DisordersPDF
81 FR 20657 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 20657 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20658 - Prospective Grant of Start-up Exclusive License: Therapeutics and PMA-Approved Diagnostics for Alzheimer's Disease (intranasal delivery), Parkinson's Disease, Neuropathy,Neuropathic Pain, Peripheral Neuropathy, Diabetic Neuropathy, Neurapraxia, Axonotmesis and NeurotmesisPDF
81 FR 20655 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 20657 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20659 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 20678 - Data Users Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting and AgendaPDF
81 FR 20674 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments RequestedPDF
81 FR 20647 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20688 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Extend a Current Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 20637 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20676 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Campus Program Grantee Needs and Progress Assessment ToolPDF
81 FR 20677 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Renewal of a Currently Approved Collection: Office of Justice Programs' Community Partnership Grants Management System (GMS)PDF
81 FR 20523 - Family and Medical Leave Act; Definition of SpousePDF
81 FR 20694 - Excepted ServicePDF
81 FR 20696 - Submission for Review: Application for Refund of Retirement Deductions (CSRS), SF 2802 and Current/Former Spouse's Notification of Application for Refund of Retirement Deductions Under the Civil Service Retirement System, SF 2802A, 3206-0128PDF
81 FR 20618 - Reporting for Calendar Year 2015 on Offsets Agreements Related to Sales of Defense Articles or Defense Services to Foreign Countries or Foreign FirmsPDF
81 FR 20583 - Certain Natural Gas and Electric Power ContractsPDF
81 FR 20647 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on How To Submit Information in Electronic Format to the Center for Veterinary Medicine Using the Food and Drug Administration Electronic Submission GatewayPDF
81 FR 20628 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
81 FR 20631 - Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. as Agent for Consumers Energy Company; Notice of ComplaintPDF
81 FR 20629 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator StatusPDF
81 FR 20628 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 20629 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed New York Bay Expansion ProjectPDF
81 FR 20630 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 20627 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 20631 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 20626 - TRICARE Demonstration Project for the PhilippinesPDF
81 FR 20622 - Notice of Availability of a Draft NOAA/NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment ProcessPDF
81 FR 20672 - Certain Surgical Stapler Devices and Components Thereof; Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety Based on a Consent Order Stipulation and Proposed Consent Order; Issuance of Consent Order; Termination of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 20661 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 20699 - Madison ETF Trust and Madison ETF Advisers, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 20718 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the JPMorgan Diversified Alternative ETFPDF
81 FR 20697 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto, Relating to AIM Retained OrdersPDF
81 FR 20709 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes in Connection With the Operation of the Exchange's Equity Options PlatformPDF
81 FR 20711 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes in Connection With the Operation of the Exchange's Equity Options PlatformPDF
81 FR 20716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Amended and Restated By-LawsPDF
81 FR 20714 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6184 (Transactions in Exchange-Traded Managed Fund Shares (“NextShares”))PDF
81 FR 20614 - Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees ProgramPDF
81 FR 20615 - Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20650 - National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 20530 - Update to Product ListsPDF
81 FR 20656 - Office of the Director; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 20656 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 20659 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; The Framingham Heart Study (NHLBI)PDF
81 FR 20524 - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Review of Major Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation Systems; Approval of Information Collection RequestPDF
81 FR 20607 - Inviting Applications for Value-Added Producer GrantsPDF
81 FR 20673 - Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, DeterminationPDF
81 FR 20668 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Crescent Point Energy Utah Federal-Tribal Well Development Project, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, UtahPDF
81 FR 20670 - Notice of Availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement To Evaluate the Use of Herbicides on Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land ManagementPDF
81 FR 20642 - Common Formats for Reporting on Health Care Quality and Patient SafetyPDF
81 FR 20640 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20646 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 20529 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; North Landing River, Chesapeake, VAPDF
81 FR 20666 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
81 FR 20579 - Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of Capital Requirements for Global Systemically Important Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 20678 - Rollins College; AmerenUE (Formerly Union Electric Company); and Outfront Media, LLC (Formerly Gannett Outdoor Companies, Operating as Outdoor Systems, Inc., Subsequently CBS Outdoor Systems, Inc.): Technical Amendment to, and Revocation of, Permanent VariancesPDF
81 FR 20680 - Nucor Steel Connecticut Incorporated; Grant of a Permanent VariancePDF
81 FR 20592 - Safety Zones; Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones UpdatePDF
81 FR 20540 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan and Base Year Inventory for the North Reading Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
81 FR 21208 - Amendments to Class Exemptions 75-1, 77-4, 80-83 and 83-1PDF
81 FR 21181 - Amendment to and Partial Revocation of Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 86-128 for Securities Transactions Involving Employee Benefit Plans and Broker-Dealers; Amendment to and Partial Revocation of PTE 75-1, Exemptions From Prohibitions Respecting Certain Classes of Transactions Involving Employee Benefits Plans and Certain Broker-Dealers, Reporting Dealers and Banks.PDF
81 FR 21147 - Amendment to and Partial Revocation of Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 84-24 for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents and Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal UnderwritersPDF
81 FR 21139 - Amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 75-1, Part V, Exemptions From Prohibitions Respecting Certain Classes of Transactions Involving Employee Benefit Plans and Certain Broker-Dealers, Reporting Dealers and BanksPDF
81 FR 21089 - Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAsPDF
81 FR 21002 - Best Interest Contract ExemptionPDF
81 FR 20946 - Definition of the Term “Fiduciary”; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment AdvicePDF
81 FR 20600 - Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Prong 4-2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2,PDF
81 FR 20665 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 20912 - Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or IndebtednessPDF
81 FR 20858 - Inversions and Related TransactionsPDF
81 FR 20588 - Inversions and Related TransactionsPDF
81 FR 20587 - Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Application of Section 367 to a Section 351 Exchange Resulting From a Transaction Described in Section 304(a)(1); Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Guidance for Determining Stock OwnershipPDF
81 FR 20722 - Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering PipelinesPDF

Issue

81 68 Friday, April 8, 2016 Contents African African Development Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors, 20606 2016-08148 Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20640-20642 2016-08020 Common Formats for Reporting on Health Care Quality and Patient Safety, 20642-20643 2016-08021 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Importation of Fresh Andean Blackberry and Raspberry Fruit from Ecuador into the Continental United States, 20525-20528 2016-08191 Importation of Fresh Peppers from Ecuador into the United States, 20528 2016-08190 PROPOSED RULES Importation of Fresh Pitahaya Fruit from Ecuador into the Continental United States, 20575-20579 2016-08189 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Charter Renewals: Census Scientific Advisory Committee, 20616 2016-08156 National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations, 20616-20617 2016-08164 Meetings: National Advisory Committee; Virtual Meeting, 20617 2016-08167 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20643-20646 2016-08106 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20646-20647 2016-08018 2016-08090 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Texas State Advisory Committee, 20615-20616 2016-08108 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, Gloucester, MA, 20529 2016-08126 North Landing River, Chesapeake, VA, 20529-20530 2016-08017 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update, 20592-20598 2016-07997 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 20624-20625 2016-08102 2016-08105 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Certain Natural Gas and Electric Power Contracts, 20583-20587 2016-08076 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Meetings: Defense Science Board, 20626-20627 2016-08119 Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, 20625-20626 2016-08113 TRICARE Demonstration Project for the Philippines, 20626 2016-08065
Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration RULES Amendment to and Partial Revocation of Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents and Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal Underwriters, 21147-21181 2016-07928 Amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 75-1, Part V, Exemptions From Prohibitions Respecting Certain Classes of Transactions Involving Employee Benefit Plans and Certain Broker-Dealers, Reporting Dealers and Banks, 21139-21147 2016-07927 Amendments to and Partial Revocation of Prohibited Transaction Exemption 86-128 for Securities Transactions Involving Employee Benefit Plans and Broker-Dealers; Amendment to and Partial Revocation of PTE 75-1, Exemptions From Prohibitions Respecting Certain Classes of Transactions Involving Employee Benefits Plans and Certain Broker-Dealers, Reporting Dealers and Banks, 21181-21208 2016-07929 Amendments to Class Exemptions 75-1, 77-4, 80-83 and 83-1, 21208-21221 2016-07930 Best Interest Contract Exemption, 21002-21089 2016-07925 Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs, 21089-21139 2016-07926 Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule -- Retirement Investment Advice, 20946-21002 2016-07924 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Test Procedures for Commercial Clothes Washers; Correction, 20528-20529 2016-08120
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Mississippi; Redesignation of the DeSoto County, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 20543-20545 2016-08155 Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan and Base Year Inventory for the North Reading Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 20540-20542 2016-07993 Pesticide Tolerances: Fluazinam, 20545-20550 2016-08138 Significant New Use: Trichloroethylene, 20535-20540 2016-08152 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: North Carolina; Prong 4-2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, SO2, and 2012 PM2.5, 20600-20605 2016-07669 Pennsylvania; Measurement and Reporting of Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions, 20598-20600 2016-08159 NOTICES Certain New Chemicals: Receipt and Status Information for February 2016, 20633-20637 2016-08135 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 20633 2016-08139 Pesticide Registration Cancellations: Flubendiamide, 20633 2016-08157 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20637 2016-08088 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Amendments of Class B Airspace: San Diego, CA; Public Meetings, 20582-20583 2016-08124 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Final Flood Hazard Determinations, 20661-20665 2016-08049 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 20627-20633 2016-08067 2016-08068 2016-08069 2016-08071 Complaints: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., As Agent for Consumers Energy Co., 20631 2016-08073 Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status: Frontier Windpower, LLC, CPV Towantic, LLC, CPV Valley, LLC, et al., 20629 2016-08072 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: New York Bay Expansion Project, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 20629-20630 2016-08070 Staff Attendances, 20628 2016-08074 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of Capital Requirements for Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies, 20579-20582 2016-08015 NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 20637-20638 2016-08104 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 20638 2016-08103 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Permits: Endangered Species, 20666-20667 2016-08016 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry on How To Submit Information in Electronic Format to the Center for Veterinary Medicine Using the FDA Electronic Submission Gateway, 20647-20649 2016-08075 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service RULES Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Review of Major Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation Systems, 20524-20525 2016-08031 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Max Home, LLC Subzone158F; Iuka and Fulton, MS, 20617-20618 2016-08144 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 20606-20607 2016-08151 National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule, 20606 2016-08176 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20638-20640 2016-08145 2016-08146 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, 20651 2016-08150 Requests for Information: Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015; Assessing Interoperability, 20651-20655 2016-08134
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20649-20650 2016-08110 Meetings: National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice, 20650-20651 2016-08036 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 20665 2016-07664 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Reporting for Calendar Year 2015 on Offsets Agreements Related to Sales of Defense Articles or Defense Services to Foreign Countries or Foreign Firms, 20618 2016-08078 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Inversions and Related Transactions, 20858-20909 2016-07300 PROPOSED RULES Inversions and Related Transactions, 20588-20591 2016-07299 Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Application of Section 367 to a Section 351 Exchange Resulting From a Transaction Described in Section 304(a)(1); Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Guidance for Determining Stock Ownership, 20587-20588 2016-07295 Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness, 20912-20943 2016-07425 NOTICES Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 20720 2016-08230 2016-08232 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan, 20619-20622 2016-08147 Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 20618-20619 2016-08141 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Surgical Stapler Devices and Components Thereof, 20672-20673 2016-08060 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 20673 2016-08027 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20672 2016-08197 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20674-20675 2016-08091 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Campus Program Grantee Needs and Progress Assessment Tool, 20676-20677 2016-08087 Financial Capability Form, 20673-20674 2016-08107 Office of Justice Programs' Community Partnership Grants Management System, 20677 2016-08085 Forensic Science Discipline Review Framework, 20675-20676 2016-08136 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Water Act, 20674 2016-08140 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Labor Statistics Bureau

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Data Users Advisory Committee, 20678 2016-08093 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Crescent Point Energy Utah Federal-Tribal Well Development Project, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, UT, 20668-20669 2016-08024 Enefit American Oil Utility Corridor Project, Uintah County, UT, 20671-20672 2016-08118 Evaluating the Use of Herbicides on Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 20670-20671 2016-08022 Realty Actions: Classification for Lease, etc., of Public Lands for a Park in the Southwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NV, 20667-20668 2016-08187 Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification of Public Lands in Uinta County, WY, 20669-20670 2016-08188 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Framingham Heart Study, 20659-20661 2016-08032 Charter Renewals: National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, 20656 2016-08034 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements: Development of an Assay to Detect Genetic Markers Related to Elevated Serum Tryptase in Familial Tryptasemia and Mast Cell Activation Disorders, 20658-20659 2016-08100 Exclusive Licenses: Therapeutics and PMA-approved Diagnostics for Alzheimer's Disease (Intranasal Delivery), etc., 20658 2016-08097 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 20657 2016-08098 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 20657 2016-08099 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 20656 2016-08101 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 20659 2016-08094 National Institute of Mental Health, 20657 2016-08095 National Library of Medicine National Library of Medicine, 20656 2016-08033 Office of the Director, National Institutes Of Health, 20655-20656 2016-08096 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES List of Fisheries for 2016, 20550-20574 2016-08114 NOTICES Draft NOAA/NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process, 20622-20623 2016-08063 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 20622 2016-08129 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 20623-20624 2016-08128 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20688 2016-08089 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Military Readiness Activities at the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, OR, 20627 2016-08130 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions and Combined License Amendments: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., 20688-20690 2016-08123 Exemptions: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Georgia Power Co., Oglethorpe Power Corp., et al., 20690-20693 2016-08122 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Permanent Variances: Nucor Steel Connecticut, Inc., 20680-20688 2016-08004 Rollins College, et al., 20678-20680 2016-08005 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program -- 2017-2022; Rescheduled Public Meetings, 20672 2016-08244 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20693-20694 2016-08132 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Family and Medical Leave Act: Definition of Spouse, 20523-20524 2016-08081 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20696-20697 2016-08079 Excepted Service, 20694-20696 2016-08080 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines, 20722-20856 2016-06382 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission RULES Update to Product Lists, 20530-20534 2016-08035 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Value-Added Producer Grants, 20607-20614 2016-08028 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20615 2016-08037 Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees Program, 20614-20615 2016-08040 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Certain Natural Gas and Electric Power Contracts, 20583-20587 2016-08076 NOTICES Applications: Madison ETF Trust and Madison ETF Advisers, LLC, 20699-20709 2016-08047 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 20709-20711 2016-08044 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 20711-20714 2016-08043 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 20697-20699 2016-08045 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 20714-20716 2016-08041 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 20716-20718 2016-08042 NYSE Arca, Inc., 20718-20719 2016-08046 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Meetings: Council on Underserved Communities Advisory Board, 20719 2016-08131 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office PROPOSED RULES Texas Regulatory Program, 20591-20592 2016-08168 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Charter Renewals: Regional Resource Stewardship Council, 20719 2016-08112 Meetings: Regional Resource Stewardship Council, 20719 2016-08109 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott, 20720 2016-08127
Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 20722-20856 2016-06382 Part III Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 20858-20909 2016-07300 Part IV Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 20912-20943 2016-07425 Part V Labor Department, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 20946-21221 2016-07928 2016-07927 2016-07929 2016-07930 2016-07925 2016-07926 2016-07924 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 68 Friday, April 8, 2016 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 630 RIN 3206-AM90 Family and Medical Leave Act; Definition of Spouse AGENCY:

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is revising the definition of spouse in its regulations on the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as a result of the decision by the United States Supreme Court holding section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The new definition replaces the existing definition, which contains language from DOMA that refers to “a legal union between one man and one woman.” The new definition permits Federal employees with same-sex spouses to use FMLA leave in the same manner as Federal employees with opposite-sex spouses.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on May 9, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kurt Springmann by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 606-2858.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing a final regulation that revises the definition of spouse under 5 CFR 630.1202 for purposes of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This change stems from the June 26, 2013, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), invalidating Section 3 (1 U.S.C. 7) of the Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)). The revised definition establishes in regulation that Federal employees who are in legal marriages with same-sex spouses can use their leave entitlement under FMLA in the same manner as Federal employees who are in legal marriages with opposite-sex spouses.

Background

Two Federal agencies administer regulations governing FMLA. The Department of Labor (DOL) issues regulations for title I of FMLA, which covers non-Federal employees and certain Federal employees not covered under title II. OPM issues regulations for title II of FMLA, which covers most Federal employees. Title II of FMLA directs OPM to prescribe regulations that are consistent, to the extent appropriate, with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor to carry out title I of FMLA. (See 5 U.S.C. 6387.) DOL published its final regulations on the definition of spouse under title I of FMLA on February 25, 2015, at 80 FR 9989.

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Windsor that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. Section 3 states in part: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” OPM's definition of spouse in the FMLA regulations had its basis in the Section 3 language. In response to this ruling, OPM issued a memorandum on October 21, 2013, informing Federal agencies that the definition of spouse used in OPM's FMLA regulations was no longer valid. (See CPM 2013-14, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Coverage of Same-Sex Spouses, at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/family-and-medical-leave-act-fmla-coverage-same-sex-spouses.) The memorandum made clear that, effective June 26, 2013, an employee in a legally recognized same-sex marriage, regardless of state of residency, could use his or her FMLA leave entitlement in the same manner as an employee with an opposite-sex spouse.

Evaluation of Comments

On June 23, 2014, at 79 FR 35497, OPM published a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the definition of spouse in the regulations implementing title II of FMLA to mirror the definition proposed by DOL for title I employees. OPM also proposed conforming amendments that would revise the definition of parent and add a definition for State to align with DOL's definitions of these terms. We received 27 comments in response to the proposed regulations, of which 24 supported the changes.

The three commenters who opposed the change cited religious and traditional beliefs as reasons for adhering to a definition of marriage that applies only to opposite-sex couples. One supported equal benefits for same-sex couples, but did not agree with redefining marriage as other than between one man and one woman. Another maintained that the Government should not impose this change on States that had previously banned same-sex marriage. The change to the definition complies with the Supreme Court's ruling in Windsor, which invalidated the language in Section 3 of DOMA that had limited Federal recognition of marriages only to opposite-sex marriages, as well as its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), which held that States are required to license marriages between same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other States. The change is also in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 6387, which directs that OPM's FMLA regulations be consistent, to the extent practicable, with those of the Department of Labor. Moreover, OPM's definition of spouse in these regulations only applies to Federal employee coverage under FMLA and does not affect State marriage licensing practices. We note that, to the extent the commenter is suggesting that a marriage performed in one State should have no effect in a State that banned same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court squarely rejected that position in Obergefell.

Six commenters urged OPM to maintain support for the in loco parentis standard in parent and child FMLA eligibility determinations. Four of these commenters requested that OPM clarify that the regulations will not affect its implementation of the DOL Administrator's Interpretation No. 2010-3, both in how parents may be determined to stand in loco parentis and in recognizing that more than two adults may stand in loco parentis to a child. OPM noted its continuing use of the in loco parentis standard described in Administrator's Interpretation No. 2010-3 in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule under the section, “Children of Same-Sex Couples,” which referenced OPM's August 31, 2010, memorandum titled Interpretation of `Son or Daughter' Under the Family and Medical Leave Act. (See CPM 2010-15 at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/interpretation-“son-or-daughter”-under-family-and-medical-leave-act.) As noted in the memorandum, Administrator's Interpretation No. 2010-3 applies only to title I of FMLA; however, OPM has adopted the interpretation to also apply to employees covered by title II of FMLA. The memorandum specifies how individuals may be determined to stand in loco parentis and that neither the law nor OPM regulations restrict the number of parents a child may have under FMLA.

Two commenters asked that OPM consider amending the definition of parent to extend eligibility to parents-in-law. The definition of parent in the regulations derives from the statutory definition at 5 U.S.C. 6381(3). Inclusion of parents-in-law would require a statutory change; therefore, it is outside the scope of these regulations.

Three commenters noted that the phrase “in a same-sex or common law marriage” used in the definition of spouse could be interpreted as excluding same-sex common law marriages. We do not see the need to deviate from DOL's definition on this point. The definition uses the term “common law marriage” without exclusion; therefore, it applies to all common law marriages, including same-sex common law marriages. Additionally, OPM's October 21, 2013, memorandum (cited above in the Background section) makes clear that same-sex spouses in common law marriages are included in the definition of spouse.

One commenter said the Federal Government should take legislative action to meet the needs of working families excluded by FMLA because of the business-size threshold and employee tenure and hours-worked requirements. These exclusions do not apply to Federal employees covered by title II of FMLA and, regardless, legislation is outside the scope of the regulations. The same commenter expressed the need for paid family leave. FMLA does not authorize paid family leave; therefore, this comment is outside the scope of the regulations.

A Federal agency suggested adding “at the time of the marriage ceremony” in four places within the definition of spouse to make clear that, for purposes of the FMLA entitlement, the marriage need only have been valid in a State at the point in time that the ceremony took place. We believe that the verb tense used in the definition provides the needed clarity on this point where applicable. Therefore, we are not adopting this suggestion.

We made a minor editorial change to the definition of spouse (changing “was valid” to “is valid” in subparagraph (2)) to conform to the definition used by DOL in its title I regulations. We also made a minor change to the wording of the definition of parent to ensure coverage not only of individuals who stood in loco parentis to an employee but also of individuals who still stand in loco parentis to an employee. Because OPM received no comments requiring further changes to the definitions provided in the proposed rule, we are adopting the definitions as final.

Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 630

Government employees.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.

Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 630 as follows:

PART 630—ABSENCE AND LEAVE 1. The authority citation for part 630 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 6311; § 630.205 also issued under Pub. L. 108-411, 118 Stat 2312; § 630.301 also issued under Pub. L. 103-356, 108 Stat. 3410 and Pub. L. 108-411, 118 Stat 2312; § 630.303 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a); §§ 630.306 and 630.308 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(3), Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2722, and Pub. L. 103-337, 108 Stat. 2663; subpart D also issued under Pub. L. 103-329, 108 Stat. 2423; § 630.501 and subpart F also issued under E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305; subpart H also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6326; subpart I also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, Pub. L. 100-566, 102 Stat. 2834, and Pub. L. 103-103, 107 Stat. 1022; subpart J also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6362, Pub. L 100-566, and Pub. L. 103-103; subpart K also issued under Pub. L. 105-18, 111 Stat. 158; subpart L also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6387 and Pub. L. 103-3, 107 Stat. 23; and subpart M also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6391 and Pub. L. 102-25, 105 Stat. 92.

2. In § 630.1202, the definitions of parent and spouse are revised and the definition of State is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 630.1202 Definitions.

Parent means a biological, adoptive, step, or foster father or mother, or any individual who stands or stood in loco parentis to an employee meeting the definition of son or daughter below. This term does not include parents “in law.”

Spouse, as defined in the statute, means a husband or wife. For purposes of this definition, husband or wife refers to the other person with whom an individual entered into marriage as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside of any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State. This definition includes an individual in a same-sex or common law marriage that either:

(1) Was entered into in a State that recognizes such marriages, or

(2) If entered into outside of any State, is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State.

State means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States.

[FR Doc. 2016-08081 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Parts 271, 272 and 275 [FNS-2011-0035] RIN 0584-AD86 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Review of Major Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation Systems; Approval of Information Collection Request AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule; notice of approval of Information Collection Request (ICR).

SUMMARY:

The final rule entitled Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Review of Major Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation Systems was published on January 19, 2016. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared the associated information collection requirements (ICR) on March 10, 2016. This document announces approval of the ICR.

DATES:

The ICR associated with the final rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2016, at 81 FR 2725, was approved by OMB on March 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Rose Conroy, Chief, Program Design Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2803, or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The final rule entitled Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Review of Major Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation Systems was published on January 19, 2016. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared the associated information collection requirements (ICR) on March 10, 2016. This document announces approval of the ICR. The ICR for this rule approved the creation of a new information collection, which has been assigned the OMB Control Number 0584-0579.

Dated: March 31, 2016. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-08031 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0085] RIN 0579-AE04 Importation of Fresh Andean Blackberry and Raspberry Fruit From Ecuador Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the fruit will have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that includes requirements for importation in commercial consignments from a pest free production site within a certified low pest prevalence area for fruit flies, and pest monitoring and trapping. The fruit will also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador bearing an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach. This action will allow for the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests into the continental United States.

DATES:

Effective May 9, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, (301) 851-2352; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-74, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

On April 24, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 22927-22930, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0085) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to allow importation of Andean blackberry (Rubus glaucus Benth) and raspberry (Rubus idaeus Linnaeus) fruit into the continental United States from Ecuador subject to a systems approach. We also prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). The PRA evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador into the continental United States. The RMD draws upon the findings of the PRA to determine the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the continental United States of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador.

1 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0085.

In the proposed rule, we noted that the PRA rated three plant pests as having a high pest risk potential for following the pathway of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador into the continental United States: Anastrepha fraterculus (South American fruit fly), Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly, or Medfly), and Copitarsia decolora, a moth.

We determined in the PRA that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection will adequately mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests and proposed a systems approach that includes requirements for importation in commercial consignments from a pest free production site within a certified low pest prevalence area for fruit flies, pest monitoring, and pest trapping. We also proposed that the fruit be imported in commercial consignments only and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the systems approach.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 23, 2015. We received five comments during the comment period from members of the public and an employee of a foreign NPPO. The comments are discussed below.

General Comments

Two commenters stated that the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit into the continental United States should not be allowed due to the associated plant pest risk. One of these commenters added that production of blackberry and raspberry fruit in the United States, along with existing import agreements with other countries, renders importation of Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador unnecessary.

We are making no changes in response to these comments. Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), we have the authority to prohibit or restrict the importation of plants and plant products only when necessary to prevent the introduction into, or dissemination of plant pests or noxious weeds within, the United States. We have determined that fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador may be safely imported into the continental United States under the conditions we are adding to the regulations.

Mitigations for Medfly

One commenter stated that while the PRA lists Medfly as having a high pest risk potential for following the pathway of Andean blackberries and raspberries imported into the continental United States from Ecuador, the production site requirements we propose do not require mitigation for Medfly beyond standard commercial production and inspection. The commenter requested that we include an additional mitigation measure for Medfly and that we gradually reduce the requirements to commercial production and inspection only.

Another commenter observed that we currently do not require mitigations for Medfly beyond standard commercial production and inspection for raspberries imported from other countries with this pest, including Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. The commenter asked why no additional mitigations exist to prevent Medfly from following the pathway of raspberries imported into the continental United States from these countries and from Ecuador. The commenter stated that raspberries from all production sites in these countries should be inspected and undergo additional mitigation if they have the potential for bringing Medfly to the continental United States.

We respect the concerns of these commenters regarding the potential introduction of Medfly into the continental United States. However, as we noted in the RMD and the proposed rule, Andean blackberries and raspberries have been established in the scientific literature as being poor hosts for both Medfly and Anastrepha fraterculus. We also noted that there has never been an interception of fruit flies from the family Tephritidae, which includes Medfly as well as Anastrepha fraterculus, in any commercial shipments of fresh Andean blackberries or raspberries from the countries cited by the commenter. For these reasons, APHIS considers standard commercial production and inspection practices to be a sufficient mitigation for Medfly in Andean blackberries and raspberries imported from countries where the pest is present.

We also noted in the proposed rule that a slightly stronger host status potential exists for Anastrepha fraterculus in Andean blackberries and raspberries, and as a result included a requirement for field trapping in order to maintain low pest prevalence for this pest. Furthermore, we added to the proposed rule the requirement that if a single Anastrepha fraterculus, Medfly, or Copitarsia decolora is detected in a consignment, the consignment may not be exported to the United States.

Production Site Requirements

One commenter stated that requiring the production sites of Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit to be free of Anastrepha fraterculus within an area of low prevalence is excessive. The commenter stated that the production sites are over 2,800 meters in altitude with an average temperature of 13 °C, resulting in conditions too adverse for the establishment of Anastrepha fraterculus. The commenter also stated that production centers for Andean blackberries and raspberries are in areas of Ecuador isolated from other fruit crop production. The commenter requested that we remove the requirement that production sites for Andean blackberries and raspberries must be within areas of low prevalence.

We agree with the commenter that given the low temperature and high altitude, the areas in Ecuador in which blackberry and raspberry production sites are located are generally inhospitable to the establishment of Anastrepha fraterculus. However, within Ecuador there is frequent commercial and consumer transport of fruit into these production areas from areas of lower altitude with established populations of Anastrepha fraterculus. Given the risk of Anastrepha fraterculus moving to production areas via host fruit, we will retain the requirement for trapping at each production site to ensure that the sites are free of Anastrepha fraterculus and remain areas of low pest prevalence. Details of trapping requirements will be included in the operational workplan and can be adjusted if necessary based on the frequency of pest interceptions.

Economic Impacts

One commenter, concerned about potential economic impacts to raspberry and blackberry growers in the United States resulting from imports of Andean raspberry and blackberry from Ecuador, requested that we provide more data on the potential impact to these growers.

In the economic analysis accompanying this rule, we gathered and analyzed data sufficient to determine that this action will not have a significant economic impact on small domestic growers. Between 2008 and 2012, the United States imported 37.22 million pounds of fresh raspberries and between 2011 and 2013 imported 63 million pounds of fresh blackberries. Comparing the volume level of these imports with the proposed maximum level of imports from Ecuador, the Ecuadorian import share would be less than 0.4 percent of the U.S. import share for these fruits.

The same commenter asked what costs APHIS will incur in monitoring and auditing Ecuador's implementation of the systems approach.

APHIS conducts monitoring of production areas and trapping practices, audits of trap records, and other tasks necessary to ensure that the NPPO of Ecuador is implementing the systems approach. The costs of conducting these tasks are included in the APHIS budget.

The commenter also asked if the costs would be feasible for Ecuadorian blackberry and raspberry farmers and whether the regulation imposes burdens on these farmers.

Under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are required to analyze the potential regulatory and economic effects of this action on small entities within the United States. We therefore have not researched the economic effects of this action on Ecuadorian blackberry and raspberry farmers.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

The final rule will allow importation into the continental United States of fresh Andean blackberry (Rubus glaucus Benth.) and raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) fruit from Ecuador. We have information on the total quantity of Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit expected to be imported from Ecuador yearly (less than 180 metric tons (MT)), but not the amount by species. Also, the Andean blackberry is more closely comparable to the loganberry (a blackberry-raspberry hybrid) than it is to the common blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). For these reasons, we base our analysis on aggregate quantities of Rubus species commercially produced by the United States.

The majority of U.S. raspberry and blackberry farms are in three States—California, Oregon, and Washington. They are classified within the North American Industry Classification System under “Berry except Strawberry Farming” (NAICS 111334). For this industry classification, a business is considered to be a small entity if its annual receipts are not more than $750,000. The average 2012 market value of crops sold by farms in this category was less than $135,000. We infer that most fresh raspberry and blackberry fruit production is by small entities.

Over the 5-year period 2008-2012, U.S. raspberry and blackberry production for the fresh market averaged about 96 million pounds and 4 million pounds per year, respectively, for a total of about 100 million pounds, or about 45,372 MT. Expected annual imports from Ecuador of less than 180 MT will be the equivalent of less than 0.4 percent of U.S. production.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule allows fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0435, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

APHIS is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

Lists of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. Section 319.56-75 is added to read as follows:
§ 319.56-75. Andean blackberries and raspberries from Ecuador.

Andean blackberries (Rubus glaucus Benth) and raspberries (Rubus idaeus Linnaeus) may be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador under the conditions described in this section and other applicable provisions of this subpart. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the following quarantine pests: Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, and Copitarsia decolora.

(a) General requirements. (1) The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the systems approach to pest mitigations and other specific requirements that the NPPO of Ecuador will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section.

(2) APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO of Ecuador in monitoring and auditing implementation of the systems approach.

(3) Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador may be imported into the continental United States in commercial consignments only.

(b) Production site requirements. (1) Each production site must carry out the phytosanitary measures specified in the APHIS-approved operational workplan.

(2) All places of production that participate in the export program must be approved by and registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. APHIS reserves the right to conduct oversight visits in the event of pest interceptions or other problems.

(3) The NPPO of Ecuador or their designee must conduct a fruit fly trapping program for the detection of Anastrepha fraterculus at each production site in accordance with the operational workplan. If a designee conducts the program, the designation must be detailed in the operational workplan. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.

(4) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain records of trap placement, trap checks, and any captures of Anastrepha fraterculus. The trapping records must be maintained for APHIS' review for at least 1 year.

(5) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain a quality control program, approved by APHIS, to monitor or audit the trapping program in accordance with the operational workplan.

(c) Packinghouse requirements. (1) Packinghouses must be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador and comply with the requirements as specified in the operational workplan.

(2) While in use for exporting Andean blackberries and raspberries to the continental United States, the packinghouses may only accept fruit from registered production sites.

(3) If a single Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, or Copitarsia decolora is detected by the NPPO in a consignment, the consignment may not be exported to the United States. Furthermore, if a single Anastrepha fraterculus or Ceratitis capitata is detected in a consignment at the port of entry and traced back to a registered production site, that production site will lose its ability to export Andean blackberries and raspberries to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador mutually determine that risk mitigation is achieved.

(d) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of Andean blackberries and/or raspberries must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador and bear an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-75.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0435)
Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of April 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-08191 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0086] RIN 0579-AE07 Importation of Fresh Peppers From Ecuador Into the United States AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015, and effective on November 23, 2015, we amended the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the United States from Ecuador subject to a systems approach. However, the scope of the pest risk analysis supporting the rule was limited to the continental United States. Therefore, we are amending the regulations to limit the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador to the continental United States only.

DATES:

Effective April 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, (301) 851-2352; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In a final rule 1 that was published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015 (80 FR 64307-64309, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0086), and effective on November 23, 2015, we amended the fruits and vegetables regulations by adding 7 CFR 319.56-74 to allow the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States under a systems approach. However, the pest risk analysis we prepared for the rule examined the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador to the continental United States only and did not examine the risks associated with the fruit entering Hawaii or the U.S. Territories. Therefore, in order for the regulations to be consistent with the scope of the pest risk analysis, we are amending § 319.56-74 to limit the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador to the continental United States.

1 To view the final rule and supporting documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0086.

Lists of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

§ 319.56-74 [Amended]
2. Section 319.56-74 is amended by adding the word “continental” before the words “United States” each time they occur.
Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of April 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-08190 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-TP-0002] RIN 1904-AC93 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Commercial Clothes Washers; Correction AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the Federal Register on December 3, 2014 revising the test procedure provisions for commercial clothes washers. DOE published another final rule on December 15, 2014 amending the energy conservation standards for commercial clothes washers. This final rule correction amends the test procedure provisions for commercial clothes washers to clarify the applicability of the revised test procedures to the amended energy conservation standards. The correction also removes obsolete regulatory provisions.

DATES:

This correction is effective April 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected]

Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Energy conservation standards for commercial clothes washers (CCWs) are codified at 10 CFR 431.156. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.154, the test procedures for clothes washers at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1 must be used to test CCWs to determine compliance with the current energy conservation standards codified at 10 CFR 431.156(b).

DOE published a final rule on March 7, 2012, establishing a new test procedure for clothes washers at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2. 77 FR 13887.

DOE published another final rule on December 3, 2014, revising the test procedure provisions for CCWs at 10 CFR 431.154 to specify that the test procedures for clothes washers at appendix J2 must be used to determine compliance with any amended standards for CCWs based on appendix J2 efficiency metrics published after December 3, 2014. 79 FR 71624.

DOE then published a final rule on December 15, 2014, amending the energy conservation standards for CCWs, which are codified at 10 CFR 431.156(c). 79 FR 74492. These amended standards are based on appendix J2 efficiency metrics, and compliance with the amended standards is required beginning January 1, 2018.

This final rule correction (1) removes obsolete CCW standards listed at 10 CFR 431.156(a), (2) redesignates paragraphs (b) and (c) of 10 CFR 431.156 as paragraphs (a) and (b), and (3) amends the CCW test procedure provisions at 10 CFR 431.154 to clarify that the test procedures at appendixes J1 and J2 must be used to determine compliance with the CCW energy conservation standards at redesignated 10 CFR 431.156(a) and (b), respectively.

Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

The regulatory reviews conducted for this rulemaking are those set forth in the December 3, 2014 final rule that originally codified amendments to DOE's test procedures for commercial clothes washers. 79 FR 71624. The amendments from that final rule became effective January 2, 2015. Id.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), DOE has determined that notice and prior opportunity for comment on this rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The amended CCW standards codified at 10 CFR 431.156(c) correspond to the “amended standards based on appendix J2 efficiency metrics published after December 3, 2014” referenced in 10 CFR 431.154. This correction is needed to ensure clarity regarding the amended CCW standards for which the appendix J2 test procedure must be used. This final rule also removes obsolete regulatory provisions.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, Household appliances.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2016. Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

2. Section 431.154 is revised to read as follows:
§ 431.154 Test procedures.

The test procedures for clothes washers in appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter must be used to test commercial clothes washers to determine compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 431.156(a). The test procedures for clothes washers in appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter must be used to determine compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 431.156(b).

§ 431.156 [Amended]
3. Section 431.156 is amended by removing paragraph (a) and redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively.
[FR Doc. 2016-08120 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0275] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, Gloucester, MA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Blynman (SR127) Bridge across the Annisquam River and Blynman Canal at mile 0.0 at Gloucester, MA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety during a public event, the annual Saint Peter's Fiesta 5K Road Race. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed for thirty minutes to facilitate public safety.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 6:15 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. on June 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0275] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-8619, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Blynman (SR 127) Bridge across the Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, mile 0.0, at Gloucester, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8.2 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.586.

The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the Annual Saint Peter's Fiesta 5K Road Race.

Under this temporary deviation, the Blynman (SR 127) Bridge may remain in the closed position for thirty minutes between 6:15 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. on Thursday June 23, 2016.

The waterways are transited by commercial and seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes. There is an alternate route for vessel traffic around Cape Ann. Also, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at all times.

The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: April 5, 2016. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-08126 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0181] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; North Landing River, Chesapeake, VA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulations; modification.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the S165 (North Landing Road) Bridge across the North Landing River, mile 20.2, at Chesapeake, VA. This modified deviation is necessary to perform emergency bridge repairs and provide for safe navigation. This modified deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

This modified deviation is effective without actual notice from April 8, 2016 through 6 p.m. on June 30, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from April 4, 2016, until April 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0181] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this modified temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6222, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On March 11, 2016, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; North Landing River, Chesapeake, VA” in the Federal Register (81 FR 12824). Under that temporary deviation, the north span of the bridge opened-to-navigation on the hour and half hour, upon request, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., and on demand from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. Additionally under that deviation, the north and south spans of the bridge would open to navigation concurrently, with the south span only opening partially due to damage, upon request, for scheduled openings at 10 a.m., noon and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Office, who owns and operates the S165 (North Landing Road) Bridge, has requested a modified temporary deviation from the currently published deviation to perform additional repairs to the south swing span of the bridge due to damage sustained as a result of a vessel allision with the bridge.

Under this modified temporary deviation, the north span of the bridge will open-to-navigation on the hour and half hour, upon request, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., and on demand from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. The north and south spans of the bridge will open to navigation concurrently, with the south span only opening partially due to damage, upon request, for: (1) Scheduled openings at 9:30 a.m. for vessels transiting southeast, (2) 10:30 a.m. for vessels transiting northwest, and (3) at noon and 2 p.m. for two-way vessel traffic through the bridge, Monday through Friday. The horizontal clearance of the bridge with the south span closed-to-navigation is 38 feet and the horizontal clearance of the bridge with the south span partially open-to-navigation is 70 feet. The modified temporary deviation is necessary to relieve vessel congestion and provide for safe navigation on the waterway. The bridge is a double swing draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 6 feet above mean high water.

The North Landing River is used by a variety of vessels including small U.S. government and public vessels, small commercial vessels, tug and barge, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

During the closure times there will be limited opportunity for vessels which are able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position to do so. Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so, after receiving confirmation from the bridge tender that it is safe to transit through the bridge. The north span of the bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: April 4, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-08017 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3020 [Docket Nos. MC2010-21 and CP2010-36] Update to Product Lists AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Commission is updating the product lists. This action reflects a publication policy adopted by Commission order. The referenced policy assumes periodic updates. The updates are identified in the body of this document. The product lists, which is re-published in its entirety, includes these updates.

DATES:

Effective Date: April 8, 2016.

Applicability Dates: January 5, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 171 (MC2016-48 and CP2016-63); January 5, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 170 (MC2016-47 and CP2016-62); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 176 (MC2016-54 and CP2016-69); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 31 (MC2016-61 and CP2016-76); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 7 (MC2016-55 and CP2016-70); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 177 (MC2016-57 and CP2016-72); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 11 (MC2016-62 and CP2016-77); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 179 (MC2016-63 and CP2016-78); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 180 (MC2016-64 and CP2016-79); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 183 (MC2016-67 and CP2016-82); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 (MC2016-58 and CP2016-73); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 26 (MC2016-56 and CP2016-71); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 175 (MC2016-53 and CP2016-68); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 181 (MC2016-65 and CP2016-80); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 178 (MC2016-60 and CP2016-75); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 27 (MC2016-59 and CP2016-74); January 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 184 (MC2016-66 and CP2016-81); January 7, 2016, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 8 (MC2016-72 and CP2016-87); January 7, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 12 (MC2016-70 and CP2016-85); January 7, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 185 (MC2016-69 and CP2016-84); January 7, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 186 (MC2016-71 and CP2016-86); January 7, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 41 (MC2016-73 and CP2016-88); January 7, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 182 (MC2016-68 and CP2016-83); January 8, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 172 (MC2016-49 and CP2016-64); January 8, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 40 (MC2016-51 and CP2016-66); January 8, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 173 (MC2016-50 and CP2016-65); January 12, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 42 (MC2016-74 and CP2016-91); January 12, 2016, Parcel Select Contract 13 (MC2016-75 and CP2016-93); February 10, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 13 (MC2016-76 and CP2016-98); February 12, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 165 (MC2016-39 and CP2016-48); February 12, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 166 (MC2016-40 and CP2016-49); February 12, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 167 (MC2016-41 and CP2016-50); February 12, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 168 (MC2016-42 and CP2016-51); February 12, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 169 (MC2016-43 and CP2016-52); February 12, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 174 (MC2016-52 and CP2016-67); February 26, 2016, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 9 (MC2016-78 and CP2016-103); February 29, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 43 (MC2016-81 and CP2016-106); February 29, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 188 (MC2016-80 and CP2016-105); February 29, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 187 (MC2016-79 and CP2016-104); February 29, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 32 (MC2016-77 and CP2016-102); March 1, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 44 (MC2016-82 and CP2016-107); March 8, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 189 (MC2016-83 and CP2016-108); March 8, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 33 (MC2016-87 and CP2016-112); March 8, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 190 (MC2016-84 and CP2016-109); March 8, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 14 (MC2016-88 and CP2016-113); March 8, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 192 (MC2016-86 and CP2016-111); March 8, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 191 (MC2016-85 and CP2016-110); March 10, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 15 (MC2016-89 and CP2016-114); March 15, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 195 (MC2016-92 and CP2016-117); March 15, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 193 (MC2016-90 and CP2016-115); March 15, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 194 (MC2016-91 and CP2016-116); March 15, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 34 (MC2016-93 and CP2016-118); March 17, 2016, Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators Non-Published Rates 2 (MC2016-94 and CP2016-119); March 22, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 196 (MC2016-95 and CP2016-120); March 23, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 45 (MC2016-96 and CP2016-121); March 29, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 199 (MC2016-100 and CP2016-128); March 29, 20016, Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 10 (MC2016-97 and CP2016-122); March 29, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 198 (MC2016-99 and CP2016-127); March 29, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 46 (MC2016-103 and CP2016-131); March 30, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 200 (MC2016-101 and CP2016-129); March 30, 2016, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 28 (MC2016-106 and CP2016-134); March 30, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 47 (MC2016-104 and CP2016-132); March 30, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 16 (MC2016-105 and CP2016-133); March 30, 2016, Parcel Select Contract 14 (MC2016-102 and CP2016-130); March 30, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 35 (MC2016-107 and CP2016-135); March 30, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 197 (MC2016-98 and CP2016-126).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document identifies updates to the product lists, which appear as 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Mail Classification Schedule. Publication of the updated product lists in the Federal Register is addressed in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006.

Authorization. The Commission process for periodic publication of updates was established in Docket Nos. MC2010-21 and CP2010-36, Order No. 445, April 22, 2010, at 8.

Changes. The product lists are being updated by publishing a replacement in its entirety of 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Mail Classification Schedule. The following products are being added, removed, or moved within the product lists:

1. Priority Mail Contract 171 (MC2016-48 and CP2016-63) (Order No. 2977), added January 5, 2016.

2. Priority Mail Contract 170 (MC2016-47 and CP2016-62) (Order No. 2978), added January 5, 2016.

3. Priority Mail Contract 176 (MC2016-54 and CP2016-69) (Order No. 2981), added January 6, 2016.

4. Priority Mail Express Contract 31 (MC2016-61 and CP2016-76) (Order No. 2982), added January 6, 2016.

5. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 7 (MC2016-55 and CP2016-70) (Order No. 2983), added January 6, 2016.

6. Priority Mail Contract 177 (MC2016-57 and CP2016-72) (Order No. 2984), added January 6, 2016.

7. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 11 (MC2016-62 and CP2016-77) (Order No. 2985), added January 6, 2016.

8. Priority Mail Contract 179 (MC2016-63 and CP2016-78) (Order No. 2986), added January 6, 2016.

9. Priority Mail Contract 180 (MC2016-64 and CP2016-79) (Order No. 2987), added January 6, 2016.

10. Priority Mail Contract 183 (MC2016-67 and CP2016-82) (Order No. 2988), added January 6, 2016.

11. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 (MC2016-58 and CP2016-73) (Order No. 2989), added January 6, 2016.

12. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 26 (MC2016-56 and CP2016-71) (Order No. 2990), added January 6, 2016.

13. Priority Mail Contract 175 (MC2016-53 and CP2016-68) (Order No. 2991), added January 6, 2016.

14. Priority Mail Contract 181 (MC2016-65 and CP2016-80) (Order No. 2992), added January 6, 2016.

15. Priority Mail Contract 178 (MC2016-60 and CP2016-75) (Order No. 2993), added January 6, 2016.

16. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 27 (MC2016-59 and CP2016-74) (Order No. 2995), added January 6, 2016.

17. Priority Mail Contract 184 (MC2016-66 and CP2016-81) (Order No. 2996), added January 6, 2016.

18. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 8 (MC2016-72 and CP2016-87) (Order No. 2997), added January 7, 2016.

19. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 12 (MC2016-70 and CP2016-85) (Order No. 2998), added January 7, 2016.

20. Priority Mail Contract 185 (MC2016-69 and CP2016-84) (Order No. 2999), added January 7, 2016.

21. Priority Mail Contract 186 (MC2016-71 and CP2016-86) (Order No. 3001), added January 7, 2016.

22. First-Class Package Service Contract 41 (MC2016-73 and CP2016-88) (Order No. 3002), added January 7, 2016.

23. Priority Mail Contract 182 (MC2016-68 and CP2016-83) (Order No. 3004), added January 7, 2016.

24. Priority Mail Contract 172 (MC2016-49 and CP2016-64) (Order No. 3006), added January 8, 2016.

25. First-Class Package Service Contract 40 (MC2016-51 and CP2016-66) (Order No. 3007), added January 8, 2016.

26. Priority Mail Contract 173 (MC2016-50 and CP2016-65) (Order No. 3009), added January 8, 2016.

27. First-Class Package Service Contract 42 (MC2016-74 and CP2016-91) (Order No. 3018), added January 12, 2016.

28. Parcel Select Contract 13 (MC2016-75 and CP2016-93) (Order No. 3023), added January 12, 2016.

29. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 13 (MC2016-76 and CP2016-98) (Order No. 3067), added February 10, 2016.

30. Priority Mail Contract 165 (MC2016-39 and CP2016-48) (Order No. 3069), added February 12, 2016.

31. Priority Mail Contract 166 (MC2016-40 and CP2016-49) (Order No. 3070), added February 12, 2016.

32. Priority Mail Contract 167 (MC2016-41 and CP2016-50) (Order No. 3071), added February 12, 2016.

33. Priority Mail Contract 168 (MC2016-42 and CP2016-51) (Order No. 3072), added February 12, 2016.

34. Priority Mail Contract 169 (MC2016-43 and CP2016-52) (Order No. 3073), added February 12, 2016.

35. Priority Mail Contract 174 (MC2016-52 and CP2016-67) (Order No. 3074), added February 12, 2016.

36. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 9 (MC2016-78 and CP2016-103) (Order No. 3102), added February 26, 2016.

37. First-Class Package Service Contract 43 (MC2016-81 and CP2016-106) (Order No. 3110), added February 29, 2016.

38. Priority Mail Contract 188 (MC2016-80 and CP2016-105) (Order No. 3111), added February 29, 2016.

39. Priority Mail Contract 187 (MC2016-79 and CP2016-104) (Order No. 3112), added February 29, 2016.

40. Priority Mail Express Contract 32 (MC2016-77 and CP2016-102) (Order No. 3116), added February 29, 2016.

41. First-Class Package Service Contract 44 (MC2016-82 and CP2016-107) (Order No. 3120), added March 1, 2016.

42. Priority Mail Contract 189 (MC2016-83 and CP2016-108) (Order No. 3135), added March 8, 2016.

43. Priority Mail Express Contract 33 (MC2016-87 and CP2016-112) (Order No. 3136), added March 8, 2016.

44. Priority Mail Contract 190 (MC2016-84 and CP2016-109) (Order No. 3138), added March 8, 2016.

45. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 14 (MC2016-88 and CP2016-113) (Order No. 3139), added March 8, 2016.

46. Priority Mail Contract 192 (MC2016-86 and CP2016-111) (Order No. 3140), added March 8, 2016.

47. Priority Mail Contract 191 (MC2016-85 and CP2016-110) (Order No. 3141), added March 8, 2016.

48. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 15 (MC2016-89 and CP2016-114) (Order No. 3147), added March 10, 2016.

49. Priority Mail Contract 195 (MC2016-92 and CP2016-117) (Order No. 3152), added March 15, 2016.

50. Priority Mail Contract 193 (MC2016-90 and CP2016-115) (Order No. 3153), added March 15, 2016.

51. Priority Mail Contract 194 (MC2016-91 and CP2016-116) (Order No. 3154), added March 15, 2016.

52. Priority Mail Express Contract 34 (MC2016-93 and CP2016-118) (Order No. 3155), added March 15, 2016.

53. International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators Non-Published Rates 2 (MC2016-94 and CP2016-119) (Order No. 3160), added March 17, 2016.

54. Priority Mail Contract 196 (MC2016-95 and CP2016-120) (Order No. 3174), added March 22, 2016.

55. First-Class Package Service Contract 45 (MC2016-96 and CP2016-121) (Order No. 3176), added March 23, 2016.

56. Priority Mail Contract 199 (MC2016-100 and CP2016-128) (Order No. 3188), added March 29, 2016.

57. Global Expedited Package Services Contracts Non-Published Rates 10 (MC2016-97 and CP2016-122) (Order No. 3189), added March 29, 2016.

58. Priority Mail Contract 198 (MC2016-99 and CP2016-127) (Order No. 3191), added March 29, 2016.

59. First-Class Package Service Contract 46 (MC2016-103 and CP2016-131) (Order No. 3192), added March 29, 2016.

60. Priority Mail Contract 200 (MC2016-101 and CP2016-129) (Order No. 3194), added March 30, 2016.

61. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 28 (MC2016-106 and CP2016-134) (Order No. 3195), added March 30, 2016.

62. First-Class Package Service Contract 47 (MC2016-104 and CP2016-132) (Order No. 3198), added March 30, 2016.

63. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 16 (MC2016-105 and CP2016-133) (Order No. 3199), added March 30, 2016.

64. Parcel Select Contract 14 (MC2016-102 and CP2016-130) (Order No. 3200), added March 30, 2016.

65. Priority Mail Express Contract 35 (MC2016-107 and CP2016-135) (Order No. 3201), added March 30, 2016.

66. Priority Mail Contract 197 (MC2016-98 and CP2016-126) (Order No. 3202), added March 30, 2016.

The following negotiated service agreements have expired and are being deleted from the Mail Classification Schedule:

1. Priority Mail Contract 44 (MC2013-2 and CP2013-2) (Order No. 1508).

2. Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 11 (MC2013-1 and CP2013-1) (Order No. 1509).

3. Priority Mail Contract 50 (MC2013-26 and CP2013-34) (Order No. 1608).

4. Priority Mail Contract 51 (MC2013-31 and CP2013-40) (Order No. 1632).

5. Express Mail Contract 13 (MC2013-32 and CP2013-41) (Order No. 1640).

6. Priority Mail Contract 52 (MC2013-35 and CP2013-46) (Order No. 1646).

7. Priority Mail Contract 53 (MC2013-36 and CP2013-47) (Order No. 1650).

8. Priority Mail Contract 54 (MC2013-37 and CP2013-48) (Order No. 1653).

9. Express Mail Contract 14 (MC2013-41 and CP2013-53) (Order No. 1673).

10. Priority Mail Contract 55 (MC2013-40 and CP2013-52) (Order No. 1675).

11. Priority Mail Contract 48 (MC2013-16 and CP2013-15) (Order No. 1548).

12. Express Mail Contract 11 (MC2011-14 and CP2011-50) (Order No. 644).

Updated product lists. The referenced changes to the product lists are incorporated into 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Mail Classification Schedule.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020

Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Postal Regulatory Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 3020—PRODUCT LISTS 1. The authority citation for part 3020 continues to read as follows: Authority:

39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.

2. Revise Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Mail Classification Schedule to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Mail Classification Schedule

(An asterisk (*) indicates an organizational class or group, not a Postal Service product.)

Part A—Market Dominant Products 1000 Market Dominant Product List First-Class Mail* Single-Piece Letters/Postcards Presorted Letters/Postcards Flats Parcels Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Inbound Letter Post Standard Mail (Commercial and Nonprofit)* High Density and Saturation Letters High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels Carrier Route Letters Flats Parcels Every Door Direct Mail—Retail Periodicals* In-County Periodicals Outside County Periodicals Package Services* Alaska Bypass Service Bound Printed Matter Flats Bound Printed Matter Parcels Media Mail/Library Mail Special Services* Ancillary Services International Ancillary Services Address Management Services Caller Service Credit Card Authentication International Reply Coupon Service International Business Reply Mail Service Money Orders Post Office Box Service Customized Postage Stamp Fulfillment Services Negotiated Service Agreements* Domestic* PHI Acquisitions, Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement International* Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Inbound Market Dominant Exprés Service Agreement 1 Nonpostal Services* Alliances with the Private Sector to Defray Cost of Key Postal Functions Philatelic Sales Market Tests* Part B—Competitive Products 2000 Competitive Product List Domestic Products* Priority Mail Express Priority Mail Parcel Select Parcel Return Service First-Class Package Service Retail Ground International Products* Outbound International Expedited Services Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates) Outbound Priority Mail International International Priority Airmail (IPA) International Surface Air List (ISAL) International Direct Sacks—M-Bags Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Package International Service Negotiated Service Agreements* Domestic* Priority Mail Express Contract 8 Priority Mail Express Contract 15 Priority Mail Express Contract 16 Priority Mail Express Contract 17 Priority Mail Express Contract 18 Priority Mail Express Contract 19 Priority Mail Express Contract 20 Priority Mail Express Contract 21 Priority Mail Express Contract 22 Priority Mail Express Contract 23 Priority Mail Express Contract 24 Priority Mail Express Contract 25 Priority Mail Express Contract 26 Priority Mail Express Contract 27 Priority Mail Express Contract 28 Priority Mail Express Contract 29 Priority Mail Express Contract 30 Priority Mail Express Contract 31 Priority Mail Express Contract 32 Priority Mail Express Contract 33 Priority Mail Express Contract 34 Priority Mail Express Contract 35 Parcel Return Service Contract 5 Parcel Return Service Contract 6 Parcel Return Service Contract 7 Parcel Return Service Contract 8 Parcel Return Service Contract 9 Parcel Return Service Contract 10 Priority Mail Contract 24 Priority Mail Contract 29 Priority Mail Contract 33 Priority Mail Contract 56 Priority Mail Contract 57 Priority Mail Contract 58 Priority Mail Contract 59 Priority Mail Contract 60 Priority Mail Contract 61 Priority Mail Contract 62 Priority Mail Contract 63 Priority Mail Contract 64 Priority Mail Contract 65 Priority Mail Contract 66 Priority Mail Contract 67 Priority Mail Contract 70 Priority Mail Contract 71 Priority Mail Contract 72 Priority Mail Contract 73 Priority Mail Contract 74 Priority Mail Contract 75 Priority Mail Contract 76 Priority Mail Contract 77 Priority Mail Contract 78 Priority Mail Contract 79 Priority Mail Contract 80 Priority Mail Contract 81 Priority Mail Contract 82 Priority Mail Contract 83 Priority Mail Contract 84 Priority Mail Contract 85 Priority Mail Contract 86 Priority Mail Contract 87 Priority Mail Contract 88 Priority Mail Contract 89 Priority Mail Contract 90 Priority Mail Contract 91 Priority Mail Contract 92 Priority Mail Contract 93 Priority Mail Contract 94 Priority Mail Contract 95 Priority Mail Contract 96 Priority Mail Contract 97 Priority Mail Contract 98 Priority Mail Contract 99 Priority Mail Contract 100 Priority Mail Contract 101 Priority Mail Contract 102 Priority Mail Contract 103 Priority Mail Contract 104 Priority Mail Contract 105 Priority Mail Contract 106 Priority Mail Contract 107 Priority Mail Contract 108 Priority Mail Contract 109 Priority Mail Contract 110 Priority Mail Contract 111 Priority Mail Contract 112 Priority Mail Contract 113 Priority Mail Contract 114 Priority Mail Contract 115 Priority Mail Contract 116 Priority Mail Contract 117 Priority Mail Contract 118 Priority Mail Contract 119 Priority Mail Contract 120 Priority Mail Contract 121 Priority Mail Contract 122 Priority Mail Contract 123 Priority Mail Contract 124 Priority Mail Contract 125 Priority Mail Contract 126 Priority Mail Contract 127 Priority Mail Contract 128 Priority Mail Contract 129 Priority Mail Contract 130 Priority Mail Contract 131 Priority Mail Contract 132 Priority Mail Contract 133 Priority Mail Contract 134 Priority Mail Contract 135 Priority Mail Contract 136 Priority Mail Contract 137 Priority Mail Contract 138 Priority Mail Contract 139 Priority Mail Contract 140 Priority Mail Contract 141 Priority Mail Contract 142 Priority Mail Contract 143 Priority Mail Contract 144 Priority Mail Contract 145 Priority Mail Contract 146 Priority Mail Contract 147 Priority Mail Contract 148 Priority Mail Contract 149 Priority Mail Contract 150 Priority Mail Contract 151 Priority Mail Contract 152 Priority Mail Contract 153 Priority Mail Contract 154 Priority Mail Contract 155 Priority Mail Contract 156 Priority Mail Contract 157 Priority Mail Contract 158 Priority Mail Contract 159 Priority Mail Contract 160 Priority Mail Contract 161 Priority Mail Contract 162 Priority Mail Contract 163 Priority Mail Contract 164 Priority Mail Contract 165 Priority Mail Contract 166 Priority Mail Contract 167 Priority Mail Contract 168 Priority Mail Contract 169 Priority Mail Contract 170 Priority Mail Contract 171 Priority Mail Contract 172 Priority Mail Contract 173 Priority Mail Contract 174 Priority Mail Contract 175 Priority Mail Contract 176 Priority Mail Contract 177 Priority Mail Contract 178 Priority Mail Contract 179 Priority Mail Contract 180 Priority Mail Contract 181 Priority Mail Contract 182 Priority Mail Contract 183 Priority Mail Contract 184 Priority Mail Contract 185 Priority Mail Contract 186 Priority Mail Contract 187 Priority Mail Contract 188 Priority Mail Contract 189 Priority Mail Contract 190 Priority Mail Contract 191 Priority Mail Contract 192 Priority Mail Contract 193 Priority Mail Contract 194 Priority Mail Contract 195 Priority Mail Contract 196 Priority Mail Contract 197 Priority Mail Contract 198 Priority Mail Contract 199 Priority Mail Contract 200 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 10 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 12 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 13 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 14 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 16 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 17 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 18 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 19 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 20 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 21 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 22 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 23 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 24 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 25 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 26 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 27 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 28 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 3 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 5 Parcel Select Contract 2 Parcel Select Contract 5 Parcel Select Contract 7 Parcel Select Contract 8 Parcel Select Contract 9 Parcel Select Contract 10 Parcel Select Contract 11 Parcel Select Contract 12 Parcel Select Contract 13 Parcel Select Contract 14 Priority Mail—Non-Published Rates Priority Mail—Non-Published Rates 1 First-Class Package Service Contract 35 First-Class Package Service Contract 36 First-Class Package Service Contract 37 First-Class Package Service Contract 38 First-Class Package Service Contract 39 First-Class Package Service Contract 40 First-Class Package Service Contract 41 First-Class Package Service Contract 42 First-Class Package Service Contract 43 First-Class Package Service Contract 44 First-Class Package Service Contract 45 First-Class Package Service Contract 46 First-Class Package Service Contract 47 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 2 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 4 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 5 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 6 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 7 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 8 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 9 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 2 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 4 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 5 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 6 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 7 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 8 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 9 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 11 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 12 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 13 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 14 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 15 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 16 Outbound International* Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) Contracts GEPS 3 Global Bulk Economy (GBE) Contracts Global Plus Contracts Global Plus 1C Global Plus 2C Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 1 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 2 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 3 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 4 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 2 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 3 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 4 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 5 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 6 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 7 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 8 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 9 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 10 Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes—Non-Published Rates Outbound Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreement with Royal Mail Group, Ltd. Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes Contracts Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes Contracts 1 Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 2 Inbound International* International Business Reply Service (IBRS) Competitive Contracts International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 1 International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Customers Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations 1 Inbound EMS Inbound EMS 2 Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post Agreement Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Special Services* Address Enhancement Services Greeting Cards, Gift Cards, and Stationery International Ancillary Services International Money Transfer Service—Outbound International Money Transfer Service—Inbound Premium Forwarding Service Shipping and Mailing Supplies Post Office Box Service Competitive Ancillary Services Nonpostal Services* Advertising Licensing of Intellectual Property other than Officially Licensed Retail Products (OLRP) Mail Service Promotion Officially Licensed Retail Products (OLRP) Passport Photo Service Photocopying Service Rental, Leasing, Licensing or other Non-Sale Disposition of Tangible Property Training Facilities and Related Services USPS Electronic Postmark (EPM) Program Market Tests* International Merchandise Return Service (IMRS)—Non-Published Rates Customized Delivery

By the Commission.

Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08035 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697; FRL-9943-83] RIN 2070-AK05 Trichloroethylene; Significant New Use Rule AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), EPA is finalizing a significant new use rule (SNUR) for trichloroethylene (TCE). The significant new use is the manufacture or processing for use in a consumer product, with an exception for use of TCE in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Persons subject to the SNUR will be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacturing or processing of TCE for a significant new use. The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary based on the information available at that time, an opportunity to protect against potential unreasonable risks, if any, from that activity before it occurs.

DATES:

This final rule is effective June 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: Tyler Lloyd, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-4016; email address: [email protected]

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

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce chemical substances and mixtures. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Textile Product Mills (NAICS code 314).

• Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 321).

• Printing and Related Support Activities (NAICS code 323).

• Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325).

• Plastics and Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 326).

• Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS code 331).

• Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 332).

• Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS code 333).

• Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 334).

• Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing (NAICS code 335).

• Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 336).

• Furniture and Product Related Manufacturing (NAICS code 337).

• Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS code 339).

• Clothing and Clothing Accessory Stores (NAICS code 488).

• Warehousing and Storage (NAICS code 493).

• Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811).

• National Security and International Affairs (NAICS code 928).

Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities.

This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Persons who import any chemical substance governed by a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)), (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical information contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture (including import) or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.

C. What action is the agency taking?

This final SNUR will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture (including import) or processing of TCE for use in a consumer product except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray.

The SNUR was proposed in the Federal Register of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 47441) (FRL-9930-33) (Ref. 1). Please consult the August 7, 2015 Federal Register document for further background information for this final rule. Additionally, please note that the RIN for the proposed SNUR was inadvertently published as RIN 2070-AK50. This final SNUR bears the correct identification, RIN 2070-AK05. EPA received 4 public comments on the proposal and EPA's response to those comments appear in Unit X.

D. Why is the agency taking this action?

This SNUR is necessary to ensure that EPA receives timely advance notice of any future manufacturing and processing of TCE for new uses that may produce changes in human and environmental exposures. The rationale and objectives for this SNUR are explained in Unit III.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of TCE. This analysis (Ref. 2), which is available in the docket, is discussed in Unit IX., and is briefly summarized here.

In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated to be less than $8,900 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $6,500 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN and the payment of a user fee. The SNUR requires first-time submitters of any TSCA section 5 notice to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting tool, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E-payment account before they may submit a SNUN, for a cost of approximately $200 per firm. However, these activities are only required of first time submitters of section 5 notices. In addition, for persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country, which is estimated to be approximately $80 per notification.

II. Chemical Substance Subject to This Rule

This final SNUR applies to TCE (Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number (CASRN) 79-01-6) manufactured (including import) or processed for use in any consumer product, except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. A consumer product is defined at 40 CFR 721.3 as “a chemical substance that is directly, or as part of a mixture, sold or made available to consumers for their use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, in or around a school, or in recreation.”

III. Rationale and Objectives A. Rationale

As discussed in detail in Units II and III of the proposed rule (80 FR 47441; August 7, 2015), TCE has the potential to induce neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, endocrine effects, and several forms of cancer (Ref. 3). EPA is concerned about the adverse health effects of TCE resulting from commercial and consumer uses of the chemical substance. In EPA's final risk assessment of TCE, released on June 25, 2014, the Agency identified risks to workers using TCE and to bystanders for use as degreasers and a spot-cleaner in dry cleaning uses, and EPA also identified health risks to consumers using spray aerosol degreasers and spray fixatives (Ref. 3).

EPA believes that any additional use of this chemical substance in consumer products could significantly increase human exposure, and that such exposures should not occur without an opportunity for EPA review and control as appropriate. However, as discussed in Unit II of the proposed rule (80 FR 47441; August 7, 2015), based on review of Safety Data Sheets and the National Institutes of Health's Household Products Database, EPA believes that cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray presently contain TCE and are therefore ongoing uses of this chemical. EPA believes that other consumer products do not presently contain TCE. Spray fixative product use was discontinued by September 1, 2015, as described in Unit II.A of the proposed rule (80 FR 47441).

Consistent with EPA's past practice for issuing SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2), EPA's decision to promulgate a SNUR for a particular chemical use need not be based on an extensive evaluation of the hazard, exposure, or potential risk associated with that use. Rather, the Agency action is based on EPA's determination that if the use begins or resumes, it may present a risk that EPA should evaluate under TSCA before the manufacturing or processing for that use begins. Since the new use does not currently exist, deferring a detailed consideration of potential risks or hazards related to that use is an effective use of resources. If a person decides to begin manufacturing or processing the chemical for the use, the notice to EPA allows EPA to evaluate the use according to the specific parameters and circumstances surrounding that intended use.

B. Objectives

Based on the considerations in Unit III.A., EPA will achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new use(s) that are designated in this final rule:

1. EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process TCE for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

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

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

IV. Significant New Use Determination

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

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

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

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

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

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

To determine what would constitute a significant new use of TCE, as discussed in Unit II of the proposed rule (80 FR 47441), EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four factors listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (80 FR 47441). EPA has determined as the significant new use: Manufacture or processing for any use in a consumer product, except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Because TCE is not used in consumer products (with the limited exceptions of use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray), EPA believes new use in consumer products could increase the magnitude and duration of human exposure to TCE. Exposure to TCE through inhalation may lead to a wide array of adverse health effects, such as neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, endocrine effects, and several forms of cancer, as further explained in Unit II.C of the proposed rule (80 FR 47441), and because of these potential adverse effects EPA would like the opportunity to evaluate such potential uses in consumer products for any associated risks or hazards that might exist before those uses would begin.

V. Applicability of the General Provisions

General provisions for SNURs appear under 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule.

Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submissions requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities on which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

Persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 707.60(b), this final SNUR does not trigger export notification for articles. Persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements, codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B.

VI. Applicability of Rule to Uses Occurring Before Effective Date of the Final Rule

As discussed in the Federal Register of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376; FRL-3658-5) (Ref. 4), EPA has decided that the intent of section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the date of publication of the proposed rule rather than as of the effective date of the final rule. If uses begun after publication of the proposed rule were considered ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for EPA to establish SNUR notice requirements, because a person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the proposed significant new use before the rule became final, and then argue that the use was ongoing as of the effective date of the final rule. Thus, persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of TCE after the proposal was published on August 7, 2015, must cease such activity before the effective date of this final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to comply with all applicable SNUR notice requirements and wait until the notice review period, including all extensions, expires. Uses arising after the publication of the proposed rule are distinguished from uses that exist at publication of the proposed rule. The former would be new uses, the latter ongoing uses, except that uses that are ongoing as of the publication of the proposed rule would not be considered ongoing uses if they have ceased by the date of issuance of a final rule. However, recognizing that use in a consumer product of TCE in spray fixatives was to cease and did cease by September 1, 2015 as described in Unit II.A. of the proposed rule (80 FR 47441), EPA considers September 1, 2015 as the date from which the significant new use with respect only to such spray fixatives would be designated. Public commenters on the proposed rule did not identify any additional ongoing uses. EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with this SNUR before the effective date. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under 40 CFR 721.45(h), that person would be considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those activities.

VII. Test Data and Other Information

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not usually require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. There are two exceptions:

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

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

In the absence of a section 4 test rule or a section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required to submit only test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (15 U.S.C. 2604(d); 40 CFR 721.25, and 40 CFR 720.50). However, as a general matter, EPA recommends that SNUN submitters include data that would permit a reasoned evaluation of risks posed by the chemical substance during its manufacture, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal. EPA encourages persons to consult with the Agency before submitting a SNUN. As part of this optional pre-notice consultation, EPA would discuss specific data it believes may be useful in evaluating a significant new use. SNUNs submitted for significant new uses without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e) to prohibit or limit activities associated with this chemical.

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

• Human exposure and environmental releases that may result from the significant new uses of the chemical substance;

• Potential benefits of the chemical substance; and

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

VIII. SNUN Submissions

EPA recommends that submitters consult with the Agency prior to submitting a SNUN to discuss what data may be useful in evaluating a significant new use. Discussions with the Agency prior to submission can afford ample time to conduct any tests that might be helpful in evaluating risks posed by the substance. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 721.25 and 40 CFR 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

IX. Economic Analysis A. SNUNs

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance included in this final rule (Ref. 2). In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated at approximately $8,900 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $6,500 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN, and the payment of a user fee. Businesses that submit a SNUN would be subject to either a $2,500 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(b)(2)(iii), or, if they are a small business with annual sales of less than $40 million when combined with those of the parent company (if any), a reduced user fee of $100 (40 CFR 700.45(b)(1)). EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the public docket for this final rule (Ref. 2).

B. Export Notification

Under section 12(b) of TSCA and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical substance or mixture for which, among other things, a rule has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 5. For persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The total costs of export notification will vary by chemical, depending on the number of required notifications (i.e., the number of countries to which the chemical is exported). While EPA is unable to make any estimate of the likely number of export notifications for the chemical covered in this final SNUR, as stated in the accompanying economic analysis of this final SNUR, the estimated cost of the export notification requirement on a per unit basis is approximately $80.

X. Response to Public Comment

The Agency reviewed and considered all comments received related to the proposed rule. Copies of all comments are available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697). A discussion of the major comments germane to the rulemaking and the Agency's responses follow.

A. Support for TCE SNUR

1. Comment. One commenter supports the proposed rule and reiterates human health effects related to TCE exposure. (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697-0009.)

Response. EPA acknowledges the comment.

2. Comment. One commenter supports the proposed rule and asks EPA to (a) “broaden the scope of the SNUR to: (1) Include certain commercial uses of TCE, and (2) regularly review ongoing uses of TCE and update the SNUR to include any discontinued uses” and (b) “promptly promulgate a TSCA section 6(a) rule to address identified risks of TCE from ongoing uses.” (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697-0010.)

Response. The commenter points out that there are “widespread ongoing commercial uses of TCE.” Currently ongoing commercial uses of TCE cannot be included in the SNUR. EPA will continue to monitor uses of TCE and consider promulgating future SNURs for discontinued or other non-ongoing uses.

TSCA section 6 provides authority for EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of chemicals, as well as any manner or method of disposal. EPA identified TCE for risk evaluation as part of its Work Plan for Chemical Assessment under TSCA. TCE is used in industrial and commercial processes, and also has some limited uses in consumer products. In the June 2014 TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment, EPA identified risks associated with commercial degreasing and some consumer uses. EPA is initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address these risks. Specifically, EPA will determine whether the use of TCE in some commercial degreasing uses, as a spotting agent in dry cleaning, and in certain consumer products presents an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment such that regulation is warranted under TSCA section 6.

3. Comment. One commenter agrees with the EPA's understanding that TCE is not widely used, with the exception of TCE in cleaners and solvent, degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697-0011.)

Response. EPA acknowledges the comment.

4. Comment. One commenter asks the Agency to “rescind any exemption to issuing a notice to any party looking to begin using TCE in the production of any consumer good” because TCE “is known to be a volatile organic compound (VOC) with a close association with many adverse health and environmental effects.” (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697-0008.)

Response. EPA acknowledges the comment. As described in Unit III.A., by issuing this final rule EPA defers, if and until such time as a SNUN is submitted, the opportunity to evaluate the use according to the specific parameters and circumstances surrounding that intended use before such use could occur. In the event that a SNUN is submitted, EPA will follow all regulations and guidelines, pursuant to TSCA section 5(a)(2), that guide the assessment of any environmental and health concerns resulting from the Significant New Use.

B. Review of Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment

1. Comment. One commenter contends that the final Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment “should not serve as the basis for regulation” and notes specific concerns with it, asking EPA to respond to each. (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697-0011.)

Response. The peer-reviewed Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment referenced by the commenter includes an assessment of the hazard of TCE. As described in the risk assessment, TCE is carcinogenic to humans and TCE exposure is associated with a range of non-cancer health effects in humans and animals, including developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, kidney toxicity, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity and liver toxicity. While EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four factors listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (80 FR 47441), EPA believes that the commenter's specific concerns are not relevant to the “basis for regulation” for this SNUR.

Under section 5(a)(2), EPA is neither required to determine that a particular new use of any chemical substances presents, nor even that it may present, an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Rather, EPA issues a SNUR for a particular new use of a substance if it has reason to anticipate that the use would raise significant questions related to potential exposure, so that it should have an opportunity to review the use before such use should occur. As discussed in Unit IV, EPA based this judgement on a consideration of all relevant factors, including the specific factors identified at section 5(a)(2).

XI. References

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Trichloroethylene (TCE); Significant New Use Rule; TCE in Certain Consumer Products; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (80 FR 47441, August 7, 2015) (FRL-9930-33).

2. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final Significant New Use Rule for Trichloroethylene (TCE). March 10, 2016.

3. EPA. TSCA Workplan Chemical Risk Assessment—Trichloroethylene: Degreasing, Spot Cleaning and Arts & Crafts Uses; Supporting and Related Material. June 25, 2014.

4. EPA. Significant New Uses of Certain Chemical Substances; Final Rule. Federal Register (55 FR 17376, April 24, 1990) (FRL-3658-5).

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 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 under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The information collection activities associated with existing chemical SNURs are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188); and the information collection activities associated with export notifications are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 2070-0030 (EPA ICR No. 0795). If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to be less than 100 hours per response, and the estimated burden for export notifications is less than 1.5 hours per notification. In both cases, burden is estimated to be reduced for submitters who have already registered to use the electronic submission system.

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

A SNUR applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a “significant new use.” By definition of the word “new” and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. Since this SNUR will require a person who intends to engage in such activity in the future to first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no economic impact will occur unless someone files a SNUN to pursue a significant new use in the future or forgoes profits by avoiding or delaying the significant new use. Although some small entities may decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemical substances, the Agency receives only a handful of notices per year. During the six year period from 2005-2010, only three submitters self-identified as small in their SNUN submission (Ref. 2). EPA believes the cost of submitting a SNUN is relatively small compared to the cost of developing and marketing a chemical new to a firm or marketing a new use of the chemical and that the requirement to submit a SNUN generally does not have a significant economic impact.

Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with this final SNUR is not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published as a final rule on August 8, 1997 (62 FR 42690) (FRL-5735-4), the Agency presented its general determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, do not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

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

This final rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have any effect (i.e., there will be no increase or decrease in authority or jurisdiction) on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this action.

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

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that 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 it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

This final rule does not invoke special consideration of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

XIII. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and the Comptroller of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 721

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

Dated: April 4, 2016. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 9—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

2. In § 9.1, add the following section in numerical order under the undesignated center heading “Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances” to read as follows:
§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 40 CFR citation OMB Control number *    *    *    *    * Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances *    *    *    *    * 721.10851 2070-0038 *    *    *    *    *
PART 721—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

4. Add § 721.10851 to subpart E to read as follows:
§ 721.10851 Trichloroethylene.

(a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance trichloroethylene (CAS 79-01-6) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new use described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(2) Manufacture or processing for use in a consumer product except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2016-08152 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773; FRL-9944-73-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan and Base Year Inventory for the North Reading Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). The revision demonstrates attainment of the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the North Reading 2008 lead nonattainment area (North Reading Area or Area). The attainment plan includes the base year emissions inventory, an analysis of reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control measures (RACM), and reasonable further progress (RFP), modeling demonstration of lead attainment, and contingency measures for the Area. EPA is approving Pennsylvania's lead attainment plan with the base year emissions inventory for the North Reading Area as a revision to Pennsylvania's SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the Commonwealth's submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

On January 11, 2016 (81 FR 1136), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of a revision to Pennsylvania's SIP for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North Reading Area. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Pennsylvania on August 12, 2015.

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the lead NAAQS, lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3 calculated over a three-month rolling average. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA.

On November 22, 2010, EPA designated Alsace and Muhlenberg Townships and the Laureldale Borough, all of which are located in Berks County, Pennsylvania, as the North Reading Area for its nonattainment status with the 2008 lead NAAQS. 76 FR 72097. The designation of the North Reading Area as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS triggered requirements under section 191(a) of the CAA, requiring Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Area will attain the 2008 lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2015.

Section 179(a)(1) of the CAA establishes specific consequences if EPA finds that a state has failed to submit a SIP or, with regard to a submitted SIP, if EPA determines it is incomplete or if EPA disapproves it. Additionally, any of these findings also triggers an obligation for EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) if the state has not submitted, and EPA has not approved, the required SIP within 2 years of the finding pursuant to section 110(c) of the CAA. On February 25, 2014, the EPA issued a finding that Pennsylvania failed to make the required nonattainment SIP submission for the North Reading Area. 79 FR 10391. With this final approval by EPA of Pennsylvania's North Reading attainment plan SIP in accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Agency no longer has any obligation to issue a FIP for the North Reading Area in accordance with section 110(c) of the CAA.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

On August 12, 2015, Pennsylvania through the Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted an attainment plan for the North Reading Area as a SIP revision which includes a base year emissions inventory, an attainment demonstration, an analysis of RACM and RACT, provisions for RFP, and contingency measures.

The SIP revision also includes paragraph 3 of a consent order and agreement (COA), dated June 15, 2015, between Exide Technologies (Exide) and PADEP and paragraphs 5 and 22 of a COA, dated June 12, 2015, between Yuasa Battery, Inc (Yuasa) and PADEP. EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment plan includes a review of these elements for the North Reading Area.

EPA's approval of the attainment plan is based on the Agency's finding that the Area meets all lead NAAQS attainment plan requirements under CAA sections 172, 191, and 192. Due to monitored ambient air quality violations in early 2013, before a major source of lead began idling, the Area did not attain the NAAQS, over 36 consecutive three-month periods, by December 2015, the attainment date. However, as a result of implementation of PADEP's August 12, 2015 SIP revision, EPA and PADEP expect the North Reading Area will attain the 2008 lead NAAQS on the basis of 2014-2016 ambient air quality data. EPA is approving the base year emissions inventory submitted with the plan, as well as the RACM/RACT and RFP analyses, the attainment demonstration including modeling, and the contingency measures for the North Reading Area.

Other specific requirements of the SIP submittal attainment plan for the North Reading Area and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and its accompanying Technical Support Documents (TSDs) and will not be restated here.1 No public comments were received on the NPR.

1 In the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD that accompanied EPA's NPR, published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2016 (81 FR 1136), EPA inadvertently made a misstatement when summarizing a small portion of a COA between PADEP and Yuasa Battery, Inc. The statement made in the TSD was “Yuasa shall conduct stack testing on all the stacks listed above in 2020, and thereafter in any year that is divisible, with remainder, by five” when it should have stated “Yuasa shall conduct stack testing on all the stacks listed above in 2020, and thereafter in any year that is divisible, without remainder, by five.” This error was inadvertent and in no way alters EPA's conclusion or analysis regarding reasonableness of Pennsylvania's RACM for the North Reading Area.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the lead attainment plan for the North Reading Area and paragraph 3 of the COA between PADEP and Exide and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA between PADEP and Yuasa, as submitted on August 12, 2015 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has determined that the SIP meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to approve Pennsylvania's August 12, 2015 SIP submission which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT and RFP analyses, and contingency measures.

With the EPA's final approval of Pennsylvania's North Reading attainment plan submittal, EPA no longer has any obligation to promulgate a FIP for the North Reading Area pursuant to sections 110(c) or 172(c) of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 7, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving Pennsylvania's SIP revision containing the attainment plan and base year inventory for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North Reading Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead.

Dated: March 24, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the attainment plan for the North Reading nonattainment area for the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards at the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

(1) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable
  • geographic area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Attainment Plan and Base Year Emissions Inventory for the North Reading nonattainment area for the 2008 lead NAAQS North Reading Area 8/12/15 4/8/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] See §§ 52.2036(z) and 52.2055(b).
    3. Section 52.2036 is amended by adding paragraph (z) to read as follows:
    § 52.2036 Base year emissions inventory.

    (z) EPA approves as a revision to the Pennsylvania state implementation plan the 2010 base year emissions inventory for the North Reading, Pennsylvania nonattainment area for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This SIP revision was submitted by the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on August 10, 2015. This submittal consists of the 2010 base year emissions inventories for all relevant sources in the North Reading nonattainment area for the pollutant lead (Pb).

    4. Section 52.2055 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 52.2055 Control strategy: Lead.

    (b) EPA approves the state implementation plan for the North Reading, Pennsylvania nonattainment area for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This SIP revision including reasonably available control measures, reasonably available control technology, contingency measures, and attainment demonstration was submitted by the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on August 10, 2015.

    [FR Doc. 2016-07993 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0743; FRL-9944-74-Region 4] Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; MS; Redesignation of the DeSoto County, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 11, 2015, the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environment Quality (MDEQ), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the portion of Mississippi that is within the Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas (Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area” or “Area”) and a related State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is taking the following separate final actions related to the December 11, 2015, redesignation request and SIP revision: Determining that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS); approving the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area, including the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the year 2027 for the Mississippi portion of the Area, into the SIP; and redesignating the Mississippi portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2027 MVEBs for the Mississippi portion of the Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0743. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background for Final Actions

    On May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088. The Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2008-2010 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088. The Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area consists of a portion of DeSoto County in Mississippi, all of Shelby County in Tennessee, and all of Crittenden County in Arkansas. At the time of designation, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the final implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (SIP Implementation Rule),1 EPA established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). This established an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date for areas classified as marginal areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Therefore, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area's attainment date is July 20, 2015.

    1 This rule, entitled Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements and published at 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015), addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control measures (RACM), major new source review (NSR), emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. This rule also addresses the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the anti-backsliding requirements that apply when the 1997 ozone NAAQS are revoked.

    On December 11, 2015, MDEQ requested that EPA redesignate Mississippi's portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the year 2027 for the Mississippi portion of the Area.2 In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on February 11, 2016, EPA proposed to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and incorporate into the Mississippi SIP the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2027 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for Mississippi's portion of Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area; and to redesignate the Mississippi portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 7269. In that notice, EPA also notified the public of the status of the Agency's adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for Mississippi's portion of Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. No comments were received on the February 11, 2016, proposed rulemaking. The details of Mississippi's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. See 81 FR 7269 (February 11, 2016).

    2 The Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality adopted the SIP revision containing the maintenance plan on December 2, 2015.

    II. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of Mississippi's redesignation request changes the legal designation of DeSoto County in the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, found at 40 CFR 81.325, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Mississippi's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan into the SIP for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area through 2027. The maintenance plan establishes NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027 for the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area and includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluating potential violations. The MVEBs for the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, along with the allocations from the safety margin, are provided in the table below.3

    3 As discussed in the NPRM, the safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. Mississippi chose to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027. MDEQ has allocated 5.26 tpd of the NOX safety margin to the 2027 NOX MVEB and 2.46 tpd of the VOC safety margin to the 2027 VOC MVEB.

    MVEBs for the Mississippi Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area [tpd] 2027 NOX VOC On-Road Emissions 2.74 2.54 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB 5.26 2.46 Conformity MVEB 8.00 5.00 III. Final Actions

    EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding Mississippi's December 11, 2015, request to redesignate the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment and associated SIP revision. First, EPA is determining that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    Second, EPA is approving and incorporating the maintenance plan for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027, into the Mississippi SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2027.

    Third, EPA is determining that Mississippi has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation of the State's portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is approving Mississippi's redesignation request. As mentioned above, approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of DeSoto County in the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81.

    EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-established NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity. Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions:

    • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

    • will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 7, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: March 29, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Z—Mississippi 2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding an entry for “2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the DeSoto County portion of Memphis, TN-AR-MS Nonattainment Area” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1270 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State
  • submittal date/effective date
  • EPA Approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the DeSoto County portion of Memphis, TN-AR-MS Nonattainment Area DeSoto County portion of Memphis, TN-AR-MS Nonattainment Area 12/2/2015 4/8/2016 [Insert citation of publication]
    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    4. In § 81.325, the table entitled “Mississippi-2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)” is amended under “Memphis, TN-MS-AR:” By revising the entry for “DeSoto County (part) Portion along MPO Lines” to read as follows:
    § 81.325 Mississippi. Mississippi-2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation Date 1 Type Classification Date 1 Type Memphis, TN-MS-AR: 2 DeSoto County (part) Portion along MPO Lines 4/8/2016 Attainment *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 2 Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08155 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0197; FRL-9942-99] Fluazinam; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fluazinam in or on cabbage, mayhaw, the cucurbit vegetable crop group 9, and the tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C and amends the existing tolerance for “vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5” to read “vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5, except cabbage.” Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective April 8, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 7, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0197, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0197 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 7, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0197, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28925) (FRL-9927-39), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5E8349) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide fluazinam (3-chloro-N-[3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinamine), including its metabolites and degradates in or on mayhaw at 2.0 parts per million (ppm); cabbage at 3.0 ppm; the squash/cucumber subgroup 9B at 0.05 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm. The petition also requested to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.574 in or on the vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5 at 0.01 by changing it to read “vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5, except cabbage” at 0.01 ppm and by removing the existing tolerance on potato at 0.02 ppm upon approval of the requested tolerance on the tuberous and corm subgroup 1C. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    EPA is combining the existing tolerance for the melon subgroup 9A tolerance with the proposed squash/cucumber subgroup 9B tolerance and establishing a tolerance for the entire cucurbit vegetable crop group 9, rather than just subgroup 9B. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    The liver is a primary target organ for fluazinam and numerous liver effects were observed in rats, mice, and dogs after oral and dermal exposure. After inhalation exposure, portal of entry effects (increased lung/bronchial weights, alveolar macrophages and peribronchiolar proliferation) were seen.

    Clinical signs were observed in an acute oral neurotoxicity study in rats; decreases in motor activity and soft stools were seen on the day of dosing at the limit dose. These effects were attributed to systemic toxicity and were not considered to be evidence of frank neurotoxicity. In two subchronic neurotoxicity studies (evaluated together) in rats, no evidence of neurotoxicity was observed. A neurotoxic lesion was observed initially in long-term studies in mice and dogs; however, the lesion is reversible and was later attributed to the presence of an impurity (Impurity-5) in the technical material. A NOAEL for the impurity was determined (based on the maximum concentration of Impurity-5 in technical grade fluazinam), equivalent to a NOAEL for central nervous system (CNS) effects of 20 mg/kg/day for technical grade fluazinam. The current acute and chronic reference doses selected for risk assessment are lower than the determined NOAEL and thus, protective of any possible neurotoxic effects resulting from exposure to Impurity-5.

    In an immunotoxicity study in mice, significant suppressions of anti-SRBC AFC assay response were demonstrated at the highest dose tested indicating potential immunotoxicity. However, clear NOAELs and LOAELs were identified for the effects seen in the study and the points of departure (PODs) and endpoints selected for risk assessment are protective of immunotoxic effects.

    There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in the rabbit developmental or rat reproduction studies. However, quantitative susceptibility was seen in rat developmental and developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) studies where fetal/offspring effects were observed in the absence of maternal toxicity. The concern is low for the increased susceptibility noted in the studies since clear NOAELs are established, and the most sensitive endpoints/PODs are used for risk assessment and are protective of the observed susceptibility. Therefore, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor (SF) has been reduced to 1x.

    Fluazinam is classified as having “Suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential,” based on increases in thyroid gland follicular cell tumors in male rats and increases in hepatocellular tumors in male mice. Although there is evidence of thyroid tumors in male rats and liver tumors in male mice, the NOAEL used (1.12 mg/kg/day) for establishing the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is approximately 3-fold lower than the lowest dose that induced tumors (3.8 mg/kg/day). The Agency has determined that quantification of cancer risk using a non-linear approach (cRfD) would adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, which could result from exposure to fluazinam.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fluazinam as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Fluazinam. Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Section 3 Registration for New Uses on Tuberous and Corm, Subgroup 1C, Mayhaw, Squash/Cucumber Subgroup 9B; Amended Uses on Cabbage” on page 44 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0197.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluazinam used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 7, 2012 (77 FR 66723) (FRL-9366-6).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to fluazinam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluazinam tolerances in 40 CFR 180.574. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluazinam in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for fluazinam. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the 2003-2008 United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, the acute analysis is based on tolerance-level residues for all commodities and uses high-end residue estimates for the metabolite AMGT ((3-[[4-amino-3-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]amino]-2-nitro-6-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]thio]-2-(beta-D-glucopyranosyloxy) propionic acid)). In addition, the acute assessment assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT).

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the chronic analysis is based on tolerance-level residues for all commodities except apples. For apples, the average field trial value was used. As with the acute assessment, it incorporates high-end estimates for AMGT, 100 PCT assumptions, default processing factors for all relevant processed commodities without a separate tolerance.

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

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

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for fluazinam and its transformation products, including DCPA (6-(4-carboxy-3-chloro-2,6-dinitroanilino)-5-chloronicotinic acid), CAPA (3-chloro-6-(3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-4-trifluoromethyl anilino)nicotinic acid), DAPA (3-chloro-N4-(3-chloro-5-trifluoromethyl-2-pyridyl)-α,α,α-trifluorotoluene-3,5,5-triamine; 3-chloro-2(2,6-diamino-3-chloro-α,α,α-trifluoro-p-toluidino)-5-(trifluoromethyl) pyridine), HYPA (5-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl-2-pyridyl]amino]-α,α,α-trifluoro-4,6-dinitro-o-cresol), and AMPA (2-(6-amino-3-chloro-α,α,α-trifluoro-2-nitro-p-toluidino)-3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)pyridine).

    These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of fluazinam and its transformation products. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for total residues of fluazinam and its transformation products for acute exposures are estimated to be 226 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 137 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 37.8 ppb for surface water and 119 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 226 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water, and for the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 119 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    Fluazinam is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: golf course turf. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Only short-term dermal exposure is expected for residential post-application scenarios for children, teens, and adults who could potentially be exposed when they play golf on treated turf. No other residential exposures are expected. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in the rabbit developmental or rat reproduction studies. However, quantitative susceptibility was seen in rat developmental and DNT studies where fetal/offspring effects were observed in the absence of maternal toxicity. The concern is low for the increased susceptibility noted in the studies since clear NOAELs are established, and the most sensitive endpoints/PODs are used for risk assessment and are protective of the observed susceptibility.

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

    i. The toxicity database for fluazinam is complete.

    ii. Although indications of neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity were observed in the database for fluazinam, there were clear NOAELs for these effects, and the endpoints and doses for risk assessment are protective of the potential effects.

    iii. There is no evidence that fluazinam results in increased susceptibility in the rabbit developmental or rat reproduction studies. However, quantitative susceptibility was seen in rat developmental and DNT studies where fetal/offspring effects were observed in the absence of maternal toxicity. The concern is low for the increased susceptibility noted in the studies since clear NOAELs are established, and the most sensitive endpoints/PODs are used for risk assessment.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues for all commodities except apples, where anticipated residues were used in the chronic assessment. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fluazinam and its transformation products in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fluazinam.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to fluazinam will occupy 32% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to fluazinam from food and water will utilize 92% of the cPAD for all infants, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of fluazinam is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Fluazinam is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to fluazinam.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 690 for children 6 to <11 years old, 820 for youth 11 to <16 years old and 890 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for fluazinam is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

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

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

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA assessed cancer risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD) since it adequately accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to fluazinam. As the chronic dietary endpoint and dose are protective of potential cancer effects, fluazinam is not expected to pose an aggregate cancer risk.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detector (GC/ECD) method is available for enforcing fluazinam tolerances on plant commodities.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established MRLs for fluazinam for any of the commodities covered by this action.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Because the tolerance level for the existing melon subgroup 9A is the same as the squash/cucumber subgroup 9B tolerance the Agency is establishing, the Agency is combining the tolerances for the two subgroups and establishing a tolerance for the entire cucurbit vegetable crop group 9.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluazinam (3-chloro-N-[3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinamine), including its metabolites and degradates in or on mayhaw at 2.0 ppm; cabbage at 3.0 ppm; cucurbit vegetables crop group 9 at 0.07 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm. In addition, the existing tolerance on the vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5 at 0.01 is modified to read “vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5, except cabbage” at 0.01 ppm and the existing tolerance on potato at 0.02 ppm is removed as unnecessary since it is covered by the tolerance on the tuberous and corm subgroup 1C, and the melon subgroup 9A tolerance is removed since it is now replaced by the cucurbit vegetables crop group 9 tolerance.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 31, 2016. G. Jeffrey Herndon, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.574, amend the table in paragraph (a)(1) as follows: a. Alphabetically add the entries “Cabbage” and “Mayhaw”. b. Remove the entries “Melon subgroup 9A” and “Potato”. c. Remove the entry for “Vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5” and alphabetically add entries for “Vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5, except cabbage” and “Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C“.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 180.574 Fluazinam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * * (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Cabbage 3.0 *    *    *    *    * Mayhaw 2.0 *    *    *    *    * Vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5, except cabbage 0.01 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.07 *    *    *    *    * Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C 0.02
    [FR Doc. 2016-08138 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 150306230-6303-02] RIN 0648-BE88 List of Fisheries for 2016 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) publishes its final List of Fisheries (LOF) for 2016, as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The final LOF for 2016 reflects new information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS must classify each commercial fishery on the LOF into one of three categories under the MMPA based upon the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to each fishery. The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan (TRP) requirements. In addition, NMFS begins publishing online fact sheets for Category III fisheries on a rolling basis.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this final rule is May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa White, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8494; Allison Rosner, Greater Atlantic Region, 978-281-9328; Jessica Powell, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312; Elizabeth Petras, West Coast Region, 206-526-6155; Bridget Mansfield, Alaska Region, 907-586-7642; Dawn Golden, Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5000. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    What is the list of fisheries?

    Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. NMFS must reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and other relevant sources, and publish in the Federal Register any necessary changes to the LOF after notice and opportunity for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(1)(C)).

    How does NMFS determine in which category a fishery is placed?

    The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here.

    Fishery Classification Criteria

    The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological removal (PBR) level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the PBR level as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This definition can also be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2).

    Tier 1: Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock, across all fisheries, is less than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with the stock will be placed in Category III (unless those fisheries interact with other stock(s) in which total annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the next tier (Tier 2) of analysis to determine their classification.

    Tier 2: Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality and serious injury for a particular stock.

    Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level (i.e., frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

    Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level (i.e., occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

    Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level (i.e., a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

    Additional details regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995).

    Because fisheries are classified on a per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as one Category for one marine mammal stock and another Category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is typically classified on the LOF at its highest level of classification (e.g., a fishery qualifying for Category III for one marine mammal stock and for Category II for another marine mammal stock will be listed under Category II). Stocks driving a fishery's classification are denoted with a superscript “1” in Tables 1 and 2.

    Other Criteria That May Be Considered

    The tier analysis requires a minimum amount of data, and NMFS does not have sufficient data to perform a tier analysis on certain fisheries. Therefore, NMFS has classified certain fisheries by analogy to other Category I or II fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, or according to factors discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995) and listed in the regulatory definition of a Category II fishery: “In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals by a commercial fishery, NMFS will determine whether the incidental mortality or serious injury is `frequent,' `occasional,' or `remote' by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries” (50 CFR 229.2).

    Further, eligible commercial fisheries not specifically identified on the LOF are deemed to be Category II fisheries until the next LOF is published (50 CFR 229.2).

    How does NMFS determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery?

    The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in each commercial fishery. The list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured includes “serious” and “non-serious” documented injuries as described later in the List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean sections. To determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery, NMFS annually reviews the information presented in the current SARs and injury determination reports. The SARs are based upon the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock's PBR level and level of interaction with commercial fishing operations. The best available scientific information used in the SARs reviewed for the 2016 LOF generally summarizes data from 2008-2012. NMFS also reviews other sources of new information, including injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fisher self-reports (i.e., MMPA reports), and anecdotal reports from that time period. In some cases, more recent information may be available and used in the LOF, but in an effort to be consistent with the most recent SARs and across the LOF, NMFS typically restricts the analysis to data within the five-year time period summarized in the current SAR.

    For fisheries with observer coverage, species or stocks are generally removed from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured if no interactions are documented in the five-year timeframe summarized in that year's LOF. For fisheries with no observer coverage and for observed fisheries with evidence indicating that undocumented interactions may be occurring (e.g., fishery has low observer coverage and stranding network data include evidence of fisheries interaction that cannot be attributed to a specific fishery) species and stocks may be retained for longer than five years. For these fisheries, NMFS will review the other sources of information listed above and use its discretion to decide when it is appropriate to remove a species or stock.

    Where does NMFS obtain information on the level of observer coverage in a fishery on the LOF?

    The best available information on the level of observer coverage and the spatial and temporal distribution of observed marine mammal interactions is presented in the SARs. Data obtained from the observer program and observer coverage levels are important tools in estimating the level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in commercial fishing operations. Starting with the 2005 SARs, each SAR includes an appendix with detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery on the LOF, including the observer coverage in those fisheries. The SARs generally do not provide detailed information on observer coverage in Category III fisheries because, under the MMPA, Category III fisheries are generally not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Fishery information presented in the SARs' appendices and other resources referenced during the tier analysis may include: Level of observer coverage, target species, levels of fishing effort, spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort, characteristics of fishing gear and operations, management and regulations, and interactions with marine mammals. Copies of the SARs are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. Information on observer coverage levels in Category I, II, and III fisheries can be found in the fishery fact sheets on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources' Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/fisheries/lof.html. Additional information on observer programs in commercial fisheries can be found on the NMFS National Observer Program's Web site: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/observer-home/.

    How do I find out if a specific fishery is in Category I, II, or III?

    This rule includes three tables that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by LOF Category. Table 1 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); Table 2 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; and Table 3 lists all U.S.-authorized commercial fisheries on the high seas. A fourth table, Table 4, lists all commercial fisheries managed under applicable take reduction plans (TRPs) or take reduction teams (TRTs).

    Are high seas fisheries included on the LOF?

    Beginning with the 2009 LOF, NMFS includes high seas fisheries in Table 3 of the LOF, along with the number of valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permits in each fishery. As of 2004, NMFS issues HSFCA permits only for high seas fisheries analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The authorized high seas fisheries are broad in scope and encompass multiple specific fisheries identified by gear type. For the purposes of the LOF, the high seas fisheries are subdivided based on gear type (e.g., trawl, longline, purse seine, gillnet, troll, etc.) to provide more detail on composition of effort within these fisheries. Many fisheries operate in both U.S. waters and on the high seas, creating some overlap between the fisheries listed in Tables 1 and 2 and those in Table 3. In these cases, the high seas component of the fishery is not considered a separate fishery, but an extension of a fishery operating within U.S. waters (listed in Table 1 or 2). NMFS designates these fisheries in Tables 1, 2, and 3 by a “*” after the fishery's name. The number of HSFCA permits listed in Table 3 for the high seas components of these fisheries operating in U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort that is not accounted for in Tables 1 and 2. Many vessels/participants holding HSFCA permits also fish within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries listed in Tables 1 and 2.

    HSFCA permits are valid for five years, during which time Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) can change. Therefore, some vessels/participants may possess valid HSFCA permits without the ability to fish under the permit because it was issued for a gear type that is no longer authorized under the most current FMP. For this reason, the number of HSFCA permits displayed in Table 3 is likely higher than the actual U.S. fishing effort on the high seas. For more information on how NMFS classifies high seas fisheries on the LOF, see the preamble text in the final 2009 LOF (73 FR 73032; December 1, 2008). Additional information about HSFCA permits can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/permits/highseas.html.

    Where can I find specific information on fisheries listed on the LOF?

    Starting with the 2010 LOF, NMFS developed summary documents, or fishery fact sheets, for each Category I and II fishery on the LOF. These fishery fact sheets provide the full history of each Category I and II fishery, including: When the fishery was added to the LOF, the basis for the fishery's initial classification, classification changes to the fishery, changes to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the fishery, fishery gear and methods used, observer coverage levels, fishery management and regulation, and applicable TRPs or TRTs, if any. These fishery fact sheets are updated after each final LOF and can be found under “How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery is in Category I, II, or III?” on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources' Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/fisheries/lof.html, linked to the “List of Fisheries by Year” table. NMFS is developing similar fishery fact sheets for each Category III fishery on the LOF. However, due to the large number of Category III fisheries on the LOF and the lack of accessible and detailed information on many of these fisheries, the development of these fishery fact sheets is taking significant time to complete. As it completes work on each one, NMFS began posting Category III fishery fact sheets online on a rolling basis with the 2016 LOF.

    Am I required to register under the MMPA?

    Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization to lawfully take non-endangered and non-threatened marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a marine mammal authorization.

    How do I register and receive my MMAP authorization certificate?

    NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process, implemented through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP), with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems for Category I and II fisheries on the LOF. Participants in these fisheries are automatically registered under the MMAP and are not required to submit registration or renewal materials. In the Pacific Islands, West Coast, and Alaska regions, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail or with their state or Federal license or permit at the time of issuance or renewal. In the Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail automatically at the beginning of each calendar year. Certificates may also be obtained by visiting the Greater Atlantic Regional Office Web site (http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/mmp/mmap/). In the Southeast Region, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners notification of registry and vessel or gear owners may receive their authorization certificate by contacting the Southeast Regional Office at 727-209-5952 or by visiting the Southeast Regional Office Web site (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/marine_mammal_authorization_program/) and following the instructions for printing the certificate.

    The authorization certificate, or a copy, must be on board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery, or for non-vessel fisheries, in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). Although efforts are made to limit the issuance of authorization certificates to only those vessel or gear owners that participate in Category I or II fisheries, not all state and Federal license or permit systems distinguish between fisheries as classified by the LOF. Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in Category III fisheries may receive authorization certificates even though they are not required for Category III fisheries. Individuals fishing in Category I and II fisheries for which no state or Federal license or permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting their appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

    How do I renew my registration under the MMAP?

    In Alaska regional and Greater Atlantic regional fisheries, registrations of vessel or gear owners are automatically renewed and participants should receive an authorization certificate by January 1 of each new year. In Pacific Islands regional fisheries, vessel or gear owners receive an authorization certificate by January 1 for state fisheries and with their permit renewal for federal fisheries. In West Coast regional fisheries, vessel or gear owners receive authorization with each renewed state fishing license, the timing of which varies based on target species. Vessel or gear owners who participate in fisheries in these regions and have not received authorization certificates by January 1 or with renewed fishing licenses must contact the appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    In Southeast regional fisheries, vessel or gear owners' registrations are automatically renewed and participants will receive a letter in the mail by January 1 instructing them to contact the Southeast Regional Office to have an authorization certificate mailed to them or to visit the Southeast Regional Office Web site (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/marine_mammal_authorization_program/) to print their own certificate.

    Am I required to submit reports when I kill or injure a marine mammal during the course of commercial fishing operations?

    In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any vessel owner or operator, or gear owner or operator (in the case of non-vessel fisheries), participating in a fishery listed on the LOF must report to NMFS all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations, regardless of the category in which the fishery is placed (I, II, or III) within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip or, in the case of non-vessel fisheries, fishing activity. “Injury” is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition, any animal that ingests fishing gear or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the body is considered injured, regardless of the presence of any wound or other evidence of injury, and must be reported.

    Mortality/injury reporting forms and instructions for submitting forms to NMFS can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/mmap/#form or by contacting the appropriate Regional office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Forms may be submitted via any of the following means: (1) Online using the electronic form, (2) emailed as an attachment to [email protected], (3) faxed to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources at 301-713-0376, or (4) mailed to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (mailing address is provided on the postage-paid form that can be printed from the web address listed above). Reporting requirements and procedures can be found in 50 CFR 229.6.

    Am I required to take an observer aboard my vessel?

    Individuals participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to accommodate an observer aboard their vessel(s) upon request from NMFS. MMPA section 118 states that the Secretary is not required to place an observer on a vessel if the facilities for quartering an observer or performing observer functions are so inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the safe operation of the vessel would be jeopardized; thereby authorizing the exemption of vessels too small to accommodate an observer from this requirement. However, U.S. Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline vessels operating in special areas designated by the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan implementing regulations (50 CFR 229.36(d)) will not be exempted from observer requirements, regardless of their size. Observer requirements can be found in 50 CFR 229.7.

    Am I required to comply with any marine mammal take reduction plan regulations?

    Table 4 in this rule provides a list of fisheries affected by TRPs and TRTs. TRP regulations can be found at 50 CFR 229.30 through 229.37. A description of each TRT and copies of each TRP can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/teams.html. It is the responsibility of fishery participants to comply with applicable take reduction regulations.

    Where can I find more information about the LOF and the MMAP?

    Information regarding the LOF and the Marine Mammal Authorization Program, including: Registration procedures and forms; current and past LOFs; descriptions of each Category I and II fishery, and some Category III fisheries; observer requirements; and marine mammal mortality/injury reporting forms and submittal procedures, may be obtained at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/fisheries/lof.html, or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below:

    NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, Attn: Allison Rosner;

    NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Jessica Powell;

    NMFS, West Coast Region, Seattle Office, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115, Attn: Elizabeth Petras, Protected Resources Division;

    NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Bridget Mansfield; or

    NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, Attn: Dawn Golden.

    Sources of Information Reviewed for the 2016 LOF

    NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury information presented in the SARs for all fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery classification are warranted. The SARs are based on the best scientific information available at the time of preparation, including the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to commercial fishery operations and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks. The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. The SRGs were created by the MMPA to review the science that informs the SARs, and to advise NMFS on marine mammal population status, trends, and stock structure, uncertainties in the science, research needs, and other issues.

    NMFS also reviewed other sources of new information, including marine mammal stranding data, observer program data, fisher self-reports through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program, reports to the SRGs, conference papers, FMPs, and ESA documents.

    The LOF for 2016 was based on, among other things, stranding data; fisher self-reports; and SARs, primarily the 2014 SARs, which are generally based on data from 2008-2012. The final SARs referenced in this LOF include: 2013 (79 FR 49053, August 19, 2014) and 2014 (80 FR 50599, August 20, 2015). The SARs are available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received four comment letters on the proposed LOF for 2016 (80 FR 58427, September 29, 2015). Comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA), and a joint letter from Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

    General Comments

    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS consider alternative methods for the classification of fisheries that rarely interact with marine mammals that would average data over longer periods.

    Response: NMFS is currently evaluating the potential for analyzing data over longer periods for rare events and its application to the SARs through the GAMMS process. The method will be considered for its application to the LOF in the future once more discussion has taken place regarding the expanded use of such methods in the SARs.

    Comment 2: The Commission urges NMFS to complete the development of the fact sheets for all Category III fisheries.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance of having these fact sheets completed and will continue working on completing the remaining Category III fact sheets. Given the limited information for many Category III fisheries, fact sheets are being developed as new information becomes available.

    Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS consistently summarize information across regions, as necessary, to evaluate proposed changes to the LOF in 2016 and subsequent LOF reports.

    Response: NMFS agrees and will continue to provide a consistent level of detail across regions, where available. Some flexibility will be maintained for cases unique to a region's geography, ecology, management structure, or culture.

    Comments on Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean

    Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS assess the potential for interactions between main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) insular false killer whales and hook-and-line fisheries that overlap with the range and habitats used by this stock and reclassify by analogy those fisheries with which MHI insular false killer whales are likely to interact. At a minimum, the Commission recommends that NMFS reclassify the Hawaii troll fishery from Category III to Category II based on analogy to longline fisheries.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges the potential for interactions between MHI insular false killer whales and hook-and-line fisheries other than longline. There are a variety of commercial, recreational, and subsistence hook-and-line fisheries in Hawaii that use a mix of gear types and methods. These fisheries are not currently observed, and NMFS has not received any fisher's self-reports of marine mammal hookings or entanglements. Currently available information on MHI insular false killer whale injuries, such as dorsal fin scarring and various hooks within a stranded animal's stomach, indicate interactions are occurring, but they have not been linked to mortalities or serious injuries, nor to any specific commercial fishery.

    We do not consider the various Hawaii commercial hook-and-line fisheries on the LOF to be analogous to the Category I or II Hawaii longline fisheries, given, for example, dissimilarities in fishing gear, technique, the number of hooks deployed, and areas fished. Additionally, there are no other hook-and-line fisheries listed as Category I or II on the LOF. At this time, the available information does not support reclassification by analogy of Hawaii hook-and-line fisheries, including the Hawaii troll fishery.

    However, given the potential for MHI insular false killer whales to interact with hook-and-line fisheries, we are committed to working with the State of Hawaii and others to assess the frequency and severity of marine mammal interactions in state-managed fisheries and reduce impacts as appropriate. For example, NMFS researchers worked with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to analyze marine mammal depredation data on State of Hawaii commercial catch reports (Boggs et al., 2015), which may assist in accurately identifying fisheries that are more likely to have false killer whale interactions. NMFS also recently awarded a 2015 Endangered Species Act Section 6 Grant to the Hawaii DLNR for nearly $1.2 million over three years to strengthen efforts to minimize and mitigate incidental take of MHI insular false killer whales, including spatial and temporal analysis of the overlap between fisheries and false killer whale habitat. We will continue to work with our partners to evaluate the risk the various hook-and-line fisheries may pose to MHI insular false killer whales and whether these fisheries are appropriately classified on the annual LOF.

    Comment 5: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) contends the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery does not interact with the MHI insular or Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) stocks of false killer whales. HLA states that (a) there has never been a documented interaction between the fishery and an animal from either stock, (b) the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan essentially eliminates any overlap between the longline fisheries and the assumed ranges of the MHI insular and NWHI stocks, and (c) the revised stock boundaries presented in the draft 2015 SAR indicate that there is only a very small area in which longline fishing may overlap with either stock, and no false killer whale interaction has ever occurred in these areas. HLA opposes including the stocks on the list of marine mammals injured or killed in the deep-set fishery. If NMFS retains these species on the list (which HLA opposes), HLA requests that NMFS state in the LOF that there are no confirmed interactions with either stock and no interactions with either stock have ever occurred in the very limited area where longline effort might overlap with either stock's assumed range.

    Response: NMFS determines which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery by annually reviewing the information presented in the current SARs, among other relevant sources. The SARs are based on the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock, including range, abundance, PBR, and level of interaction with commercial fishing operations. Determinations in the LOF are based on the data and calculations contained within the SARs.

    The 2016 LOF is based on the 2014 SARs, which report fishery interactions from 2008-2012. NMFS deems this to be the best scientific and commercial information available for the time period examined. During that time period, NMFS estimates a five-year average mortality and serious injury level of 0.9 MHI insular and 0.4 NWHI false killer whales per year incidental to the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery from 2008-2012 (Carretta et al., 2015).

    NMFS is retaining the stocks on the list of marine mammal stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery. We disagree with HLA's recommended text and are not including it because false killer whale interactions have been observed in the deep-set longline fishery within the area of overlap between the pelagic, MHI insular, and NWHI stocks of false killer whales as defined in the 2014 SAR. While no genetic samples are available to establish stock identity for these takes, all stocks are considered at risk of interacting with longline gear. For a more complete analysis of the methodology for determining mortality and serious injury of MHI insular false killer whales, NMFS refers the commenter to the 2014 SAR.

    Comment 6: HLA restates its comment from the proposed 2015 LOF regarding its opposition to including short-finned pilot whales on the list of species injured or killed in the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery (see Comment 3 in the 2015 LOF final rule, 79 FR 77919, December 29, 2014). HLA commented that NMFS included the species because of a single interaction on the high seas involving an unidentified cetacean that “may have” been a short-finned pilot whale. HLA states that there have been no confirmed short-finned pilot whale interactions in the shallow-set fishery. In the absence of data confirming that the fishery is interacting with short-finned pilot whales, HLA contends NMFS may not add the species to the list of species and/or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured by the fishery.

    Response: The estimated average annual mortality and serious injury of short-finned pilot whales in the fishery on the high seas from 2008-2012 is 0.1 (McCracken, 2014). NMFS is retaining short-finned pilot whales on the list of species or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured by the fishery based on the mortality and serious injury estimate presented in McCracken, 2014.

    Comment 7: HLA restates its comment from the proposed 2015 LOF regarding its opposition to including pygmy or dwarf sperm whales on the list of species injured or killed in the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery (see Comment 4 in the 2015 LOF final rule, 79 FR 77919, December 29, 2014). HLA maintains that the MMPA requires NMFS to list the species in the LOF that are seriously injured or killed by a fishery. HLA cites the 2013 SAR, which reports a single interaction with a pygmy or dwarf sperm whale in 2008 that was classified as a non-serious injury.

    Response: As described in the preamble to this final rule and in the MMPA implementing regulations (50 CFR 229.8(b)(2)), the LOF lists the marine mammals that have been incidentally injured or killed in each commercial fishery. Separately, MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 229.2 specify a tier analysis process for classifying fisheries on the LOF based on their levels of incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals. Therefore, while only mortalities and serious injuries are considered in the tier analysis, all species that are injured (seriously or non-seriously) or killed in the fishery are included in the list. Finally, the Kogia species whale (pygmy or dwarf sperm whale) was included in the list for the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery because a Kogia species whale was non-seriously injured in the fishery in 2008 (McCracken, 2014; Carretta et al., 2015).

    Comment 8: HLA restates its comment from the proposed 2015 LOF regarding how marine mammal takes should be listed in transboundary fisheries (see Comment 5 in the 2015 LOF final rule, 79 FR 77919, December 29, 2014). HLA is concerned that fisheries operating in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas have marine mammals, for which an interaction has occurred in either the EEZ or the high seas, included on the lists of species killed or injured in both the EEZ and the high seas (i.e., on both Tables 1 or 2 and Table 3). HLA is concerned this redundant listing results in a mistaken implication that a given fishery may interact with a certain species in one geographic area (e.g., within the EEZ) when that fishery has only been observed to interact with the species in another geographic area (e.g., on the high seas). HLA requests that NMFS revise the LOF to attribute species interactions in transboundary fisheries to only those geographic regions where interactions are actually observed. HLA contends this change would adequately report species injured or killed, but would avoid the arbitrary result of takes being attributed to fisheries in areas in which no take has ever been observed. HLA requests that if NMFS does not attribute interactions for transboundary fisheries to the geographic regions in which they occurred, then NMFS should include a footnote in the LOF to clarify, for certain stocks and fisheries, that interactions have only been observed on the high seas or in the U.S. EEZ, as appropriate, to more accurately convey the best available information to the public.

    Response: As described in the preamble, NMFS has included high seas fisheries in Table 3 of the LOF since 2009. Several fisheries operate in both U.S. waters and on the high seas, creating some overlap between the fisheries listed in Tables 1 and 2 and those in Table 3. In these cases, the high seas component of the fishery is not considered a separate fishery but an extension of a fishery operating within U.S. waters. For these fisheries, the lists of species or stocks injured or killed in Table 3 are identical to their Table 1 or 2 counterparts, except for those species or stocks with distributions known to occur on only one side of the EEZ boundary. Because the fisheries and the marine mammal lists are the same, takes of these animals are not being attributed to one geographic area or the other, even when that information may be available. This parallel list structure is explained in the footnotes for each table. We are not including additional footnotes to individual stocks and fisheries to indicate whether interactions have only been observed on the high seas or in the U.S. EEZ, but that information may be available in previous LOF rules when species and stocks are added or deleted.

    Comment 9: The Commission concurs with NMFS that the Alaska Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline fishery should be elevated to a Category II fishery.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment and finalizes the re-classification of the Alaska Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Pacific Cod Longline Fishery from Category III to Category II.

    Comment 10: The Commission recommends NMFS retain the Alaska Kodiak salmon purse seine and Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fisheries as Category II fisheries because they are unobserved.

    Response: The Alaska Kodiak salmon purse seine and Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fisheries were added to the LOF as Category II in the 2007 LOF (72 FR 14466, March 28, 2007) based on one mortality of a humpback whale in each of those fisheries in 2005. Both mortalities occurred in an area of geographic overlap of the Central and Western North Pacific humpback whales stocks. The 2005 mortalities were reported to NMFS through the Stranding/Entanglement program, as the fisheries are not observed. Samples were not obtained from the takes for genetic analysis, resulting in uncertain stock identification for either mortality.

    The 2005 mortalities were each included in the standard five-year data sets (resulting in an average 0.4 mortalities/year) used in LOF Tier I and II analyses for the 2007-2011 LOFs. Because of the uncertainty regarding the whales' stock identity, NMFS used the standard precautionary measure of using the lower PBR of the Western North Pacific stock in each year's LOF analysis, which resulted in both fisheries remaining in Category II for the 2007-2011 LOFs. Once they “aged” out of the standard five-year data set, those mortalities continued to be included in the LOF analyses four additional years (2012-2015) as a precautionary measure due to the rarity of documented humpback takes in purse seine fisheries (only two other humpback whale mortalities were previously documented in purse seine fisheries in Alaska in the mid-1990s, a mother and calf taken in one event) and because the fisheries were unobserved. Although the five-year data set used in the 2016 LOF is 2008-2012, no additional humpback whale mortalities were reported in Alaska Kodiak salmon purse seine and Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fisheries from 2013 through 2015. Further, the PBRs for each the Central and Western North Pacific humpback whale stocks have increased substantially since the initial 2005 mortalities. The PBR for the Central North Pacific humpback whales has increased from 12.9 in the 2006 SAR to 82.8 in the 2014 SAR used for the 2007 and 2016 LOFs, respectively. The PBR for the Western North Pacific humpback whales has likewise increased from 1.3 to 3.0 for those same years. Given the absence of other evidence to the contrary, ten years with no additional mortalities or serious injuries reported (since 2005 via the Stranding Network or fisherman self-reports) and a substantial increase in PBR for both North Pacific humpback whale stocks, NMFS is reclassifying the fisheries as Category III fisheries. NMFS will continue to review the most recent data and changes in these fisheries and will update the LOF, as appropriate.

    Comment 11: The Commission recommends NMFS assess the potential for all unobserved Category III AK purse seine fisheries to take humpback whales or similar species and, if appropriate, reclassify them by analogy as Category II fisheries.

    Response: NMFS believes that because takes are so rare and there are no Table 1 purse seine fisheries analogous to Alaska's fisheries, the fisheries should remain in Category III. NMFS will continue to review stranding and entanglement data as alternative sources of data for these unobserved fisheries.

    Comment 12: The Commission recommends NMFS investigate the circumstances and details of the reported interactions with the five stocks of marine mammals proposed to be added to the list of stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III CA halibut bottom trawl fishery and consider elevating it to Category II, if warranted. NMFS does not provide information on the sources of information upon which this proposal is based, nor does it provide any information about the number of interactions, their outcomes, or their magnitudes relative to PBR. In the absence of such information, it is difficult to assess the importance of five stocks being added in one year, although the Commission suggests that the number of stocks alone is sufficient to indicate the fishery may pose a greater threat to marine mammals, although of uncertain magnitude, than was previously understood.

    Response: NMFS compiled information on marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle takes observed in the west coast groundfish fisheries for the 2011 report entitled “Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals, Seabirds, and Sea Turtles in the U.S. West Coast Commercial Groundfish Fishery, 2002-2009” available at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observation/data_products/datareport/docs/mmsbt_report02-09.pdf. The report provides observed numbers and estimates of marine mammals, in table 7, that were observed incidentally taken in the groundfish fisheries, including the CA halibut bottom trawl fishery, between 2002 and 2009. The marine mammals reported as killed or seriously injured are California sea lion, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, elephant seal, and harbor porpoise. We reviewed the annual fishery mortality and serious injury estimates and PBRs for each of the five species/stocks. The Tier 1 analysis indicated that mortality and serious injury did not exceed 10 percent of PBR when added to other fishery mortality and serious injury for these stocks, therefore, the fishery remains in Category III.

    Comment 13: CBD/HSUS recommend NMFS add bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore stock, humpback whale, CA/OR/WA stock, and sea otter, CA stock, to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured by the CA spiny lobster fishery. In addition, CBD/HSUS recommend that NMFS list the CA spiny lobster fishery as Category II based on the interactions with bottlenose dolphin and humpback whale. The most current stock assessment report documents take of: Bottlenose dolphin (one serious injury in 2008) and humpback whale (one serious injury between 2007 and 2011). The list should include sea otters by analogy because the stock assessment report cited controlled experiments conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Monterey Bay Aquarium that demonstrated that sea otters exposed to lobster traps in a captive setting would succeed in entering them (Carretta et al., 2015 (citing Hatfield et al., 2011)). The mean annual take of offshore bottlenose dolphins in the spiny lobster fishery is 0.2, which is 3.6 percent of the PBR of 5.5. The mean annual take of humpback whales in the spiny lobster fishery is 0.2, which is 1.8 percent of the PBR of 11 that is allocated to U.S. waters. The fishery should be classified as Category II because the take of both stocks are between one and fifty percent of PBR.

    Response: NMFS notes this oversight and adds bottlenose dolphins and humpback whales to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the CA spiny lobster fishery. NMFS will address the classification of this fishery in the proposed 2017 LOF. See Response to Comment 14 regarding the request to add sea otters to the list of species/stocks killed or injured.

    Comment 14: CBD/HSUS recommend that NMFS list the CA/OR coonstripe shrimp pot, CA rock crab pot, and WA/OR/CA hagfish pot fisheries as Category II by analogy to other pot fisheries because of the number of entanglements due to unknown fishery interactions and the evidence that pots can attract sea otters (Carretta et al., 2015 (citing Hatfield et al., 2011)). CBD/HSUS noted that from 2000-2015, NMFS received 231 reports of entanglements, 156 of which were confirmed, 114 of which were assigned to a reported fishery and 69 of which were confirmed to a fishery.

    Response: NMFS has received similar comments regarding pot/trap fishery classifications in the past. NMFS relies upon the most recently available complete information to evaluate categorizations of fisheries on the List of Fisheries. For the proposed 2016 LOF, the most recent available information is through 2012. NMFS will address reports of entanglements and strandings during 2014 as part of the development of the proposed 2017 LOF. NMFS received a similar comment regarding sea otters for the proposed 2012 LOF (76 FR 73912, November 29, 2011, comment/response 9) as well as 2011 LOF (75 FR 68475, November 8, 2010, comment/response 13) and 2010 LOF (74 FR 58859, November 16, 2009, comment/response 3). As described in the response to comments in the final 2012 LOF and described in detail in the proposed 2009 LOF (73 FR 33760, June 13, 2008), NMFS conducted an extensive review of all available information on marine mammal interactions with pot/trap gear in 2008 and found no evidence of sea otter bycatch at that time or since. The USFWS completed a stock assessment for southern sea otters in 2008, which has not been updated. The USFWS, as part of public comments for the 2012 LOF, submitted a paper by Hatfield et al., (2011), detailing experiments that indicate that sea otters can enter and become entrapped in pots or traps with openings of certain sizes. However, the paper presented no evidence of this occurring during commercial fishing activities off California. The possibility of an interaction is insufficient justification to include southern sea otters on the list of species incidentally killed or injured in particular fisheries. Instead, NMFS needs some indication that mortalities/injuries are occurring or have occurred in these fisheries in recent years (e.g., fisher's self-reports, observer data, stranding data). If additional information becomes available indicating that southern sea otters have been killed or injured in CA trap/pot fisheries in recent years, NMFS will consider including this species on the LOF at that time.

    Comment 15: CBD/HSUS recommend that NMFS clarify the discrepancy between the number of vessels participating in the Table 3 “Pacific highly migratory species longline” fishery (estimated 126 vessels/persons) and the Table 1 “California pelagic longline” fishery (estimated one vessel/person) because the definition of the fishery and identification of vessels participating in the fishery drastically affects how to quantify marine mammal interactions and both fisheries operate only on the high seas.

    Response: The commenter is correct that the use of longline gear to target HMS within the EEZ is prohibited under the West Coast HMS FMP and that the CA pelagic longline fishery (on Table 1) does occur exclusively on the high seas. We have edited the footnote associated with this fishery. The preamble of the final 2009 LOF describes the relationship between the High Seas Pacific Highly Migratory Species Fisheries (Table 3) and West Coast HMS fisheries on Tables 1 and 2. The CA pelagic longline fishery has been included on the LOF since 2001. The high seas Pacific Highly Migratory Species longline fishery was added to the LOF in Table 3 in 2008 when all high seas fisheries were added to the LOF.

    As described in the preamble of the final 2009 LOF (73 FR 73032, December 1, 2008), the number of participants in the high seas fisheries, Table 3, is drawn from the National Permitting System database and does not necessarily reflect actual fishing activity. As shown on Table 1, there is one vessel actively engaged in longline fishing with a West Coast HMS permit. This vessel also has an HSFCA permit. A number of individuals hold West Coast HMS permits endorsed to longline (and HSFCA permits) but are not actively fishing with this gear type. In addition, a number of vessels fish with a HI pelagics FMP permit, but make landings in the U.S. West Coast, which requires a West Coast HMS FMP permit (see the HMS SAFE for more details). There are over 40 vessels with a HSFCA permit that hold both a HI pelagics HMS permit and a West Coast HMS permit, which allows them to fish with longline on the high seas (under the HI pelagics permit) and land into the U.S. West Coast (under the West Coast HMS permit).

    The number of HSFCA permits issued by NMFS changes frequently as new permits are added or renewed, or old permits expire, and does not necessarily reflect the effort or vessels in a fishery. NMFS has promulgated a regulation (80 FR 62488, October 16, 2015) to improve the administration and monitoring of the HSFCA, effective January 14, 2016, and requires vessel operators or owners identify the authorized fishery in which he or she intends to fish when applying for an HSFCA permit. There are eight fisheries authorized on the high seas, including the U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species, and this regulation should improve the accuracy of Table 3 in the LOF.

    Comment 16: The WCSPA recommends that NMFS maintain the Category III designation and separate fishery names for the WA/OR sardine purse seine fishery and the CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery. WCSPA notes the WA/OR fishery is spatially separate from the CA fishery, and while the quotas that all three fisheries access are set by the Pacific Fishery Management Council under its Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, the day-to-day management of each fishery is different. Each state has its own effort restriction plan and landing limits. There are some signs of a northern sub-population of sardine which forms part of the WA/OR fishery. In the remote occurrence of a marine mammal take that would change the categorization of either the WA/OR or the CA fishery. WCSPA believes it would be unfair to penalize the other spatially separate component.

    Response: NMFS appreciates the information and withdraws this recommendation, and leaves the “WA/OR purse seine” and the “CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine” fisheries in place.

    Comments on Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean

    Comment 17: The Commission and CBD/HSUS recommend that NMFS not remove stocks from the list of stocks and/or species incidentally killed or injured in the Category I “Mid-Atlantic gillnet” and Category II “Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl” fisheries because the fisheries have very low observer coverage.

    Response: In general, NMFS lists species incidentally killed or injured in a particular fishery based on data observed from the last five years. The list contained in the LOF is not intended to serve as a historical overview of takes within a fishery as the data are available in individual species SARs as well as Appendix III. The agency does, however, maintain flexibility to analyze fisheries on a case-by-case basis in response to low observer coverage.

    Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries have been observed at the following percent coverage from 2009-2013: 3%, 4%, 2%, 2% and 3%, respectively. For this fishery, we recommended the removal of Risso's and white-sided dolphins from the list of species incidentally taken in this fishery. The last observed takes of Risso's and white-sided dolphins occurred in 2007 and 1997 when observer coverage was 4% and 3%, respectively. While observer coverage averaged 2.8% over the last five years, Mid-Atlantic gillnet sampling levels are in the developing to mature stage (i.e., sampling 1-2% is recommended for pilot coverage, where coverage greater than 2% is considered developing to mature programs) according to the 2004 NMFS Report on Evaluating Bycatch (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/SPO_final_rev_12204.pdf) (NMFS, 2004). Therefore, current estimated observer coverage for this fishery is considered adequate for bycatch estimation purposes. More importantly, given what we know about the overlap between species distribution and fishing effort, there is low probability that the Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery will interact with Risso's and white-sided dolphins, and if they do occur, that they are rare occurrences. Thus, NMFS removes these species from the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery.

    For the Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery, we proposed to remove short-beaked common dolphin, long-finned pilot whale, and short-finned pilot whale from this fishery. The last documented takes of these species in the Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery were in 2007. New genetic information on pilot whales (Waring et al., 2015b) and their distribution has also determined that the distribution of short-finned pilot whales does not overlap with the Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery effort; and, therefore, takes in this fishery are highly unlikely and that previous pilot whale takes should be considered long-finned pilot whales. During the period 2009-2013, analysis has shown that the percent observer sampling coverage for the Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery is also adequate for understanding marine mammal bycatch in this fishery (NMFS, 2004). NMFS removes these species from the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery.

    In the case of the Mid-Atlantic gillnet and Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fisheries, NMFS asserts observer coverage is adequate for determining if recent takes of certain species have occurred within these fisheries. The removal of these species from the list of species incidentally killed or injured from these respective fisheries does not impact the classification of the fisheries in question because other species taken are currently influencing the current classification. NMFS will continue to annually monitor bycatch of marine mammals in these fisheries and will make adjustments to Table 2 should incidental mortalities or injuries occur in the future.

    Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS retains the Category III fisheries, WA/OR sardine purse seine and CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine, as separate and does not merge and re-name the two fisheries “CA/OR/WA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine” fishery, as proposed.

    NMFS adds bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore, and humpback whale, CA/OR/WA, to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III CA spiny lobster fishery.

    Summary of Changes to the LOF for 2016

    The following summarizes the changes to the LOF for 2016, including the fisheries listed in the LOF, the estimated number of vessels/persons in a particular fishery, and the species and/or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured in a particular fishery. In the LOF for 2016, NMFS re-classifies three fisheries. Additionally, NMFS adds two fisheries to the LOF and removes six fisheries from the LOF. NMFS makes changes to the list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in certain fisheries and the estimated number of vessels/persons in certain fisheries, as well as certain administrative changes. While detailed information describing each fishery in the LOF is included within the SARs, a Fishery Management Plan, or a TRP, or by state agencies, general descriptive information is important to include in the LOF for improved clarity; starting with the 2016 LOF, NMFS is releasing Category III fishery fact sheets as they are completed. The classifications and definitions of U.S. commercial fisheries for 2016 are identical to those provided in the LOF for 2015 with the changes discussed below. State and regional abbreviations used in the following paragraphs include: AK (Alaska), BSAI (Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands), CA (California), DE (Delaware), FL (Florida), GMX (Gulf of Mexico), HI (Hawaii), MA (Massachusetts), ME (Maine), NC (North Carolina), NY (New York), OR (Oregon), RI (Rhode Island), SC (South Carolina), VA (Virginia), WA (Washington), and WNA (Western North Atlantic).

    Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean Classification of Fisheries

    NMFS reclassifies the Category III Alaska Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Pacific Cod Longline Fishery as Category II.

    NMFS reclassifies the Category II Alaska Kodiak Salmon Purse Seine Fishery as Category III.

    NMFS reclassifies the Category II Alaska Cook Inlet Salmon Purse Seine Fishery as Category III.

    Addition of Fisheries

    NMFS adds the CA sea cucumber trawl fishery to the LOF as Category III.

    NMFS adds the WA/OR Mainstem Columbia River eulachon gillnet fishery to the LOF as Category III.

    Removal of Fisheries

    NMFS removes the Category III WA/OR herring, smelt, shad, sturgeon, bottom fish, mullet, perch, rockfish gillnet fishery from the LOF.

    NMFS removes the Category III WA/OR smelt, herring dip net fishery from the LOF.

    Fishery Name and Organizational Changes and Clarification

    NMFS renames the Category III “WA (all species) beach seine or drag seine” as the “WA/OR Lower Columbia River salmon seine” fishery.

    NMFS divides out three fisheries from the Category III “AK North Pacific halibut, AK bottom fish, WA/OR/CA albacore, groundfish, bottom fish, CA halibut non-salmonid troll” fishery and renames them as: “WA/OR/CA albacore surface hook and line/troll” fishery, “CA halibut hook and line/handline” fishery, and “CA White seabass hook and line/handline” fishery and removes the remaining fisheries in the group.

    NMFS renames the Category III “WA/OR salmon net pens” fishery as the “WA salmon net pen” fishery.

    NMFS renames (by revising, separating, and combining) the Category III “WA/OR sea urchin, other clam, octopus, oyster, sea cucumber, scallop, ghost shrimp, dive, hand/mechanical collection” and “CA sea urchin” fisheries to become the “WA/OR bait shrimp, clam hand, dive or mechanical collection” and “OR/CA sea urchin, sea cucumber dive, hand/mechanical collection” fisheries.

    NMFS renames the Category III “WA shellfish aquaculture” fishery as the “WA/OR shellfish aquaculture” fishery.

    Number of Vessels/Persons

    NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Pacific Ocean (Table 1) as follows:

    Category Fishery Number of
  • vessels/persons
  • (Final 2015 LOF)
  • Number of
  • vessels/persons
  • (Final 2016 LOF)
  • I HI deep-set longline 128 135 I CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh) 19 18 II CA spot prawn trap 28 25 II HI shallow-set longline 18 15 II American Samoa longline 25 22 II HI shortline 6 9 III CA set gillnet (mesh size <3.5 in) 304 296 III HI inshore gillnet 42 36 III WA/OR Lower Columbia River salmon seine 235 10 III HI lift net 21 17 III HI throw net, cast net 20 23 III HI seine net 21 24 III American Samoa tuna troll 7 13 III HI troll 1,755 2,117 III HI rod and reel 221 322 III HI kaka line 24 15 III HI vertical line 6 3 III CA halibut bottom trawl 53 47 III CA/OR coonstripe shrimp pot 10 36 III CA rock crab pot 150 124 III CA spiny lobster 198 194 III HI crab trap 7 5 III HI fish trap 5 9 III HI shrimp trap 6 10 III HI Kona crab loop net 35 33 III American Samoa bottomfish handline 14 17 III HI bottomfish handline 578 496 III HI inshore handline 376 357 III HI pelagic handline 484 534 III CA swordfish harpoon 30 6 III HI bullpen trap <3 3 III HI handpick 58 46 III HI lobster diving 23 19 III HI spearfishing 159 163
    List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Pacific Ocean

    NMFS adds the southwest Alaska stock of northern sea otters to the list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in the Category II Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet fishery.

    NMFS adds the U.S. stock of California sea lions, unknown stock of harbor porpoise, unknown stock of harbor seals, California breeding stock of northern elephant seals, unknown stock of Steller sea lions to the species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured by the Category III CA halibut bottom trawl fishery.

    NMFS adds bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore, and humpback whale, CA/OR/WA, to the list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in the Category III CA spiny lobster fishery.

    NMFS adds the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock of false killer whales to the list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in the Category I Hawaii deep-set longline fishery.

    NMFS removes the Palmyra Atoll stock of false killer whales from the list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in the Category I Hawaii deep-set longline fishery.

    NMFS adds notation “1” to indicate that the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) insular stock of false killer whales, along with the HI pelagic stock of false killer whales, is also driving the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery's Category I classification.

    NMFS adds the Gulf of Alaska, BSAI transient stock of killer whales to the list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in the Category II Alaska BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery.

    NMFS removes notation “1” from the Central North Pacific stock of humpback whales under the Category III fisheries: Alaska Cook Inlet salmon purse seine and Alaska Kodiak salmon purse seine.

    Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Name and Organizational Changes and Clarification

    NMFS renames and changes the geographic scope of the Category III “U.S. Mid-Atlantic offshore surf clam/quahog dredge” fishery.

    Number of Vessels/Persons

    NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (Table 2) as follows:

    Category Fishery Number of
  • vessels/persons
  • (Final 2015 LOF)
  • Number of
  • vessels/persons
  • (Final 2016 LOF)
  • I Mid-Atlantic gillnet 5,509 4,063 I Northeast sink gillnet 4,375 4,332 I Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot 11,693 10,163 II Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet 1,126 272 II Northeast anchored float gillnet 421 995 II Northeast drift gillnet 311 1,567 II Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 322 507 II Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl 631 994 II Northeast mid-water trawl 1,103 1,087 II Northeast bottom trawl 2,987 3,132 II Atlantic mixed-species trap pot 3,467 3,284 II Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine 5 19 II Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine 565 243 II Virginia pound net 67 47
    List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean

    NMFS adds the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise and the Gulf of Mexico stock of pygmy sperm whale to the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline fishery.

    NMFS adds the Western North Atlantic stock of Risso's dolphin to the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Northeast bottom trawl fishery.

    NMFS adds the central Georgia estuarine system stock of bottlenose dolphin to the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Atlantic blue crab trap/pot fishery.

    NMFS removes the Western North Atlantic stocks of Risso's dolphin and white-sided dolphin from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery.

    NMFS removes the Western North Atlantic stocks of common dolphin, long-finned pilot whale, and short-finned pilot whale from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery.

    NMFS removes the Western North Atlantic stocks of white-sided dolphin, long-finned pilot whale, and short-finned pilot whale from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery.

    NMFS removes the Western North Atlantic stocks of white-sided dolphin and short-finned pilot whale from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Northeast mid-water trawl fishery.

    NMFS removes the Western North Atlantic stock of short-finned pilot whale from the list of marine mammal species and/or stock incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Northeast bottom trawl fishery.

    Commercial Fisheries on the High Seas Removal of Fisheries

    NMFS removes the following Category II high seas fisheries from the List of Fisheries: (1) Western Pacific Pelagic Trawl, (2) Pacific Highly Migratory Species Liners, not elsewhere included (NEI), (3) South Pacific Albacore Troll Liners (NEI), and (4) Western Pacific Pelagic Liners (NEI).

    Number of Vessels/Persons

    NMFS updates the estimated number of HSFCA permits (Table 3) as follows:

    Category Fishery Number of
  • HSFCA permits
  • (Final 2015 LOF)
  • Number of
  • HSFCA permits
  • (Final 2016 LOF)
  • I Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Longline 83 86 I Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Deep-set component) 128 135 I Pacific Highly Migratory Species Drift Gillnet 4 5 II South Pacific Tuna Fisheries Purse Seine 38 39 II South Pacific Albacore Troll Longline 13 15 II Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Shallow-set component) 18 15 II Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Handline/Pole and Line 2 3 II Pacific Highly Migratory Species Handline/Pole and Line 41 50 II South Pacific Albacore Troll Handline/Pole and Line 8 9 II Western Pacific Pelagic Handline/Pole and Line 3 5 II South Pacific Albacore Troll 35 38 II South Pacific Tuna Fisheries Troll 3 5 II Western Pacific Pelagic Troll 19 21 III Pacific Highly Migratory Species Longline 100 126 III Pacific Highly Migratory Species Troll 253 243
    List of Fisheries

    The following tables set forth the list of U.S. commercial fisheries according to their classification under section 118 of the MMPA. Table 1 lists commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); Table 2 lists commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; Table 3 lists commercial fisheries on the high seas; and Table 4 lists fisheries affected by TRPs or TRTs.

    In Tables 1 and 2, the estimated number of vessels or persons participating in fisheries operating within U.S. waters is expressed in terms of the number of active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is available on the number of participants, vessels, or persons licensed in a fishery, then the number from the most recent LOF is used for the estimated number of vessels or persons in the fishery. NMFS acknowledges that, in some cases, these estimates may be inflations of actual effort. For example, the State of Hawaii does not issue fishery-specific licenses, and the number of participants reported in the LOF represents the number of commercial marine license holders who reported using a particular fishing gear type/method at least once in a given year, without considering how many times the gear was used. For these fisheries, effort by a single participant is counted the same whether the fisher used the gear only once or every day. In the Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries, the numbers represent the potential effort for each fishery, given the multiple gear types for which several state permits may allow. Changes made to Mid-Atlantic and New England fishery participants will not affect observer coverage or bycatch estimates, as observer coverage and bycatch estimates are based on vessel trip reports and landings data. Tables 1 and 2 serve to provide a description of the fishery's potential effort (state and Federal). If NMFS is able to extract more accurate information on the gear types used by state permit holders in the future, the numbers will be updated to reflect this change. For additional information on fishing effort in fisheries found on Table 1 or 2, contact the relevant regional office (contact information included above in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    For high seas fisheries, Table 3 lists the number of valid HSFCA permits currently held. Although this likely overestimates the number of active participants in many of these fisheries, the number of valid HSFCA permits is the most reliable data on the potential effort in high seas fisheries at this time. As noted previously in this rule, the number of HSFCA permits listed in Table 3 for the high seas components of fisheries that also operate within U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort that is not accounted for in Tables 1 and 2. Many vessels holding HSFCA permits also fish within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries in Tables 1 and 2.

    Tables 1, 2, and 3 also list the marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured (seriously or non-seriously) in each fishery based on SARs, injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fisher self-reports (i.e., MMPA reports), and anecdotal reports. The best available scientific information included in these reports is based on data through 2012. This list includes all species and/or stocks known to be killed or injured in a given fishery but also includes species and/or stocks for which there are anecdotal records of a mortality or injury. Additionally, species identified by logbook entries, stranding data, or fishermen self-reports (i.e., MMPA reports) may not be verified. In Tables 1 and 2, NMFS has designated those species/stocks driving a fishery's classification (i.e., the fishery is classified based on mortalities and serious injuries of a marine mammal stock that are greater than or equal to 50 percent [Category I], or greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent [Category II], of a stock's PBR) by a “1” after the stock's name.

    In Tables 1 and 2, there are several fisheries classified as Category II that have no recent documented mortalities or serious injuries of marine mammals, or fisheries that did not result in a mortality or serious injury rate greater than 1 percent of a stock's PBR level based on known interactions. NMFS has classified these fisheries by analogy to other Category I or II fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, as discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995), and according to factors listed in the definition of a “Category II fishery” in 50 CFR 229.2 (i.e., fishing techniques, gear types, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area). NMFS has designated those fisheries listed by analogy in Tables 1 and 2 by a “2” after the fishery's name.

    There are several fisheries in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in which a portion of the fishing vessels cross the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) boundary and therefore operate both within U.S. waters and on the high seas. These fisheries, though listed separately between Table 1 or 2 and Table 3, are considered the same fisheries on either side of the EEZ boundary. NMFS has designated those fisheries in each table by a “*” after the fishery's name.

    Table 1—List of Fisheries—Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean Fishery description Estimated number of vessels/
  • persons
  • Marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed
  • or injured
  • CATEGORY I LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: HI deep-set longline * 135 Bottlenose dolphin, HI Pelagic. False killer whale, MHI Insular.1 False killer whale, HI Pelagic.1 False killer whale, NWHI. Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI. Risso's dolphin, HI. Short-finned pilot whale, HI. Sperm whale, HI. Striped dolphin, HI. GILLNET FISHERIES: CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh) * 18 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore. California sea lion, U.S. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. Long-beaked common dolphin, CA. Minke whale, CA/OR/WA. Northern elephant seal, CA breeding. Northern right-whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Sperm Whale, CA/OR/WA1 CATEGORY II GILLNET FISHERIES: CA halibut/white seabass and other species set gillnet
  • (>3.5 in mesh)
  • 50 California sea lion, U.S.
    Harbor seal, CA. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA.1 Long-beaked common dolphin, CA. Northern elephant seal, CA breeding. Sea otter, CA. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA. CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size ≥3.5 in and <14 in)  2 30 California sea lion, U.S. Long-beaked common dolphin, CA. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA. AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet 2 1,862 Beluga whale, Bristol Bay. Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Harbor seal, Bering Sea. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific. Spotted seal, AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet 2 979 Beluga whale, Bristol Bay. Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Harbor seal, Bering Sea. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Spotted seal, AK. AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 188 Harbor porpoise, GOA.1 Harbor seal, GOA. Sea otter, Southwest AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet 736 Beluga whale, Cook Inlet. Dall's porpoise, AK. Harbor porpoise, GOA. Harbor seal, GOA. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific.1 Sea otter, Southcentral AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet 569 Beluga whale, Cook Inlet. Dall's porpoise, AK. Harbor porpoise, GOA.1 Harbor seal, GOA. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet 2 162 Dall's porpoise, AK. Harbor porpoise, GOA. Harbor seal, GOA. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet 2 113 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea. Northern sea otter, Southwest AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet 537 Dall's porpoise, AK. Harbor porpoise, GOA.1 Harbor seal, GOA. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific. Sea otter, Southcentral AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S.1 AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet 474 Dall's porpoise, AK. Harbor porpoise, Southeast AK. Harbor seal, Southeast AK. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific.1 Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific. Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet 2 168 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Harbor Porpoise, Southeastern AK. Harbor seal, Southeast AK. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK). WA Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet (includes all inland waters south of US-Canada border and eastward of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line-Treaty Indian fishing is excluded) 210 Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA. Harbor porpoise, inland WA.1 Harbor seal, WA inland. TRAWL FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl 32 Bearded seal, AK. Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea. Harbor seal, Bering Sea. Humpback whale, Western North Pacific.1 Killer whale, AK resident.1 Killer whale, GOA, AI, BS transient.1 Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Ringed seal, AK. Ribbon seal, AK. Spotted seal, AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S.1 Walrus, AK. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl 102 Bearded Seal, AK. Dall's porpoise, AK. Harbor seal, AK. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. Humpback whale, Western North Pacific. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Ribbon seal, AK. Ringed seal, AK. Spotted seal, AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S.1 AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl 17 Killer whale, ENP AK resident.1 Killer whale, GOA, AI, BS transient.1 POT, RING NET, AND TRAP FISHERIES: CA spot prawn pot 25 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA.1 CA Dungeness crab pot 570 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA.1 OR Dungeness crab pot 433 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA.1 WA/OR/CA sablefish pot 309 Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA.1 WA coastal Dungeness crab pot 228 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA.1 LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline 45 Dall's Porpoise, AK. Killer whale, GOA, BSAI transient.1 Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Ringed seal, AK. HI shallow-set longline *  15 Blainville's beaked whale, HI. Bottlenose dolphin, HI Pelagic. False killer whale, HI Pelagic.1 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. Kogia spp. whale (Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale), HI. Risso's dolphin, HI. Short-finned pilot whale, HI. Striped dolphin, HI. American Samoa longline 2 22 Bottlenose dolphin, unknown. Cuvier's beaked whale, unknown. False killer whale, American Samoa. Rough-toothed dolphin, American Samoa. Short-finned pilot whale, unknown. HI shortline 2 9 None documented CATEGORY III GILLNET FISHERIES: AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue salmon gillnet 1,778 Harbor porpoise, Bering Sea. AK miscellaneous finfish set gillnet 54 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet 29 Harbor seal, GOA. Sea otter, Southcentral AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK roe herring and food/bait herring gillnet 920 None documented. CA set gillnet (mesh size <3.5 in) 296 None documented. HI inshore gillnet 36 Bottlenose dolphin, HI. Spinner dolphin, HI. WA Grays Harbor salmon drift gillnet (excluding treaty Tribal fishing) 24 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast. WA/OR Mainstem Columbia River eulchon gillnet 15 None documented. WA/OR lower Columbia River (includes tributaries) drift gillnet 110 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, OR/WA coast. WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet 82 Harbor seal, OR/WA coast. Northern elephant seal, CA breeding. MISCELLANEOUS NET FISHERIES: AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine 83 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. AK Kodiak salmon purse seine 376 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. AK Southeast salmon purse seine 315 None documented in the most recent five years of data. AK Metlakatla salmon purse seine 10 None documented. AK miscellaneous finfish beach seine 2 None documented. AK miscellaneous finfish purse seine 2 None documented. AK octopus/squid purse seine 0 None documented. AK roe herring and food/bait herring beach seine 10 None documented. AK roe herring and food/bait herring purse seine 356 None documented. AK salmon beach seine 31 None documented. AK salmon purse seine (excluding salmon purse seine fisheries listed elsewhere) 936 Harbor seal, GOA. Harbor seal, Prince William Sound. WA/OR sardine purse seine 42 None documented. CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine 65 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, CA. CA squid purse seine 80 Long-beaked common dolphin, CA Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA. CA tuna purse seine * 10 None documented. WA/OR Lower Columbia River salmon seine 10 None documented. WA/OR herring, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara 130 None documented. WA salmon purse seine 75 None documented. WA salmon reef net 11 None documented. HI lift net 17 None documented. HI inshore purse seine <3 None documented. HI throw net, cast net 23 None documented. HI seine net 24 None documented. DIP NET FISHERIES: CA squid dip net 115 None documented. MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES: CA marine shellfish aquaculture unknown None documented. CA salmon enhancement rearing pen >1 None documented. CA white seabass enhancement net pens 13 California sea lion, U.S. HI offshore pen culture 2 None documented. WA salmon net pen 14 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor seal, WA inland waters. WA/OR shellfish aquaculture 23 None documented. TROLL FISHERIES: WA/OR/CA albacore surface hook and line/troll 705 None documented. CA halibut hook and line/handline unknown None documented. CA white seabass hook and line/handline unknown None documented. AK salmon troll 1,908 Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. American Samoa tuna troll 13 None documented. CA/OR/WA salmon troll 4,300 None documented. HI troll 2,117 Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI. HI rod and reel 322 None documented. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands tuna troll 40 None documented. Guam tuna troll 432 None documented. LONGLINE/SET LINE FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish longline 3 None documented. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline 4 Killer whale, AK resident. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish longline 22 None documented. AK Gulf of Alaska halibut longline 855 None documented. AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline 92 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish longline 25 None documented. AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline 295 Sperm whale, North Pacific. AK halibut longline/set line (state and Federal waters) 2,197 None documented in the most recent five years of data. AK octopus/squid longline 3 None documented. AK state-managed waters longline/setline (including sablefish, rockfish, lingcod, and miscellaneous finfish) 464 None documented. WA/OR/CA groundfish, bottomfish longline/set line 367 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore. WA/OR Pacific halibut longline 350 None documented. CA pelagic longline 1 None documented in the most recent five years of data. HI kaka line 15 None documented. HI vertical line 3 None documented. TRAWL FISHERIES: AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl 13 Ribbon seal, AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl 72 Ringed seal, AK. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl 36 Northern elephant seal, North Pacific. AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl 55 Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl 67 Dall's porpoise, AK. Fin whale, Northeast Pacific. Northern elephant seal, North Pacific. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl 43 None documented. AK food/bait herring trawl 4 None documented. AK miscellaneous finfish otter/beam trawl 282 None documented. AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl (statewide and Cook Inlet) 38 None documented. AK state-managed waters of Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay, Prince William Sound, Southeast AK groundfish trawl 2 None documented. CA halibut bottom trawl 47 California sea lion, U.S. Harbor porpoise, unknown. Harbor seal, unknown. Northern elephant seal, CA breeding. Steller sea lion, unknown. CA sea cucumber trawl 16 None documented. WA/OR/CA shrimp trawl 300 None documented. WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl 160-180 California sea lion, U.S. Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA. Harbor seal, OR/WA coast. Northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. POT, RING NET, AND TRAP FISHERIES: AK statewide miscellaneous finfish pot 4 None documented. AK Aleutian Islands sablefish pot 4 None documented. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot 59 None documented. AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab pot 540 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. AK Bering Sea sablefish pot 2 None documented. AK Gulf of Alaska crab pot 381 None documented. AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod pot 128 Harbor seal, GOA. AK Southeast Alaska crab pot 41 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK). AK Southeast Alaska shrimp pot 269 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific (Southeast AK). AK shrimp pot, except Southeast 236 None documented. AK octopus/squid pot 26 None documented. AK snail pot 1 None documented. CA/OR coonstripe shrimp pot 36 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Harbor seal, CA. CA rock crab pot 124 Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. Harbor seal, CA. CA spiny lobster 194 Bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific. WA/OR/CA hagfish pot 54 None documented. WA/OR shrimp pot/trap 254 None documented. WA Puget Sound Dungeness crab pot/trap 249 None documented. HI crab trap 5 Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. HI fish trap 9 None documented. HI lobster trap <3 None documented in recent years. HI shrimp trap 10 None documented. HI crab net 4 None documented. HI Kona crab loop net 33 None documented. HOOK-AND-LINE, HANDLINE, AND JIG FISHERIES: AK miscellaneous finfish handline/hand troll and mechanical jig 456 None documented. AK North Pacific halibut handline/hand troll and mechanical jig 180 None documented. AK octopus/squid handline 7 None documented. American Samoa bottomfish 17 None documented. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish 28 None documented. Guam bottomfish >300 None documented. HI aku boat, pole, and line <3 None documented. HI bottomfish handline 578 None documented in recent years. HI inshore handline 357 None documented. HI pelagic handline 534 None documented. WA groundfish, bottomfish jig 679 None documented. Western Pacific squid jig 0 None documented. HARPOON FISHERIES: CA swordfish harpoon 6 None documented. POUND NET/WEIR FISHERIES: AK herring spawn on kelp pound net 409 None documented. AK Southeast herring roe/food/bait pound net 2 None documented. HI bullpen trap 3 None documented. BAIT PENS: WA/OR/CA bait pens 13 California sea lion, U.S. DREDGE FISHERIES: Alaska scallop dredge 108 (5 AK) None documented. DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES: AK abalone 0 None documented. AK clam 130 None documented. AK Dungeness crab 2 None documented. AK herring spawn on kelp 339 None documented. AK urchin and other fish/shellfish 398 None documented. HI black coral diving <3 None documented. HI fish pond 5 None documented. HI handpick 46 None documented. HI lobster diving 19 None documented. HI spearfishing 163 None documented. WA/CA kelp 4 None documented. WA/OR bait shrimp, clam hand, dive, or mechanical collection 201 None documented. OR/CA sea urchin, sea cucumber hand, dive, or mechanical collection 10 None documented. COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL (CHARTER BOAT) FISHERIES: AK/WA/OR/CA commercial passenger fishing vessel >7,000 (2,702 AK) Killer whale, unknown. Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S. Steller sea lion, Western U.S. LIVE FINFISH/SHELLFISH FISHERIES: CA nearshore finfish live trap/hook-and-line 93 None documented. HI aquarium collecting 90 None documented. List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used in Table 1: AI—Aleutian Islands; AK—Alaska; BS—Bering Sea; CA—California; ENP—Eastern North Pacific; GOA—Gulf of Alaska; HI—Hawaii; MHI—Main Hawaiian Islands; OR—Oregon; WA—Washington; 1 Fishery classified based on mortalities and serious injuries of this stock, which are greater than or equal to 50 percent (Category I) or greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent (Category II) of the stock's PBR; 2 Fishery classified by analogy;* Fishery has an associated high seas component listed in Table 3; The list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in this fishery is identical to the list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in high seas component of the fishery, minus species and/or stocks that have geographic ranges exclusively on the high seas. The species and/or stocks are found, and the fishery remains the same, on both sides of the EEZ boundary. Therefore, the EEZ components of these fisheries pose the same risk to marine mammals as the components operating on the high seas.
    Table 2—List of Fisheries—Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery description Estimated number of vessels/
  • persons
  • Marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed
  • or injured
  • CATEGORY I GILLNET FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic gillnet 4,063 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern Migratory coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern Migratory coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern NC estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore. Common dolphin, WNA. Gray seal, WNA. Harbor porpoise, GME/BF. Harbor seal, WNA. Harp seal, WNA. Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine. Minke whale, Canadian east coast. Risso's dolphin, WNA. White-sided dolphin, WNA. Northeast sink gillnet 4,332 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore. Common dolphin, WNA. Fin whale, WNA. Gray seal, WNA. Harbor porpoise, GME/BF.1 Harbor seal, WNA. Harp seal, WNA. Hooded seal, WNA. Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine. Long-finned pilot whale, WNA. Minke whale, Canadian east coast. North Atlantic right whale, WNA. Risso's dolphin, WNA. Short-finned pilot whale, WNA. White-sided dolphin, WNA. TRAP/POT FISHERIES: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot 10,163 Harbor seal, WNA. Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine. Minke whale, Canadian east coast. North Atlantic right whale, WNA.1 LONGLINE FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline* 420 Atlantic spotted dolphin, GMX continental and oceanic. Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX oceanic. Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore. Common dolphin, WNA. Cuvier's beaked whale, WNA. False killer whale, WNA. Gervais beaked whale, GMX. Harbor porpoise, GME, BF. Killer whale, GMX oceanic. Kogia spp. (Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale), WNA. Long-finned pilot whale, WNA.1 Mesoplodon beaked whale, WNA. Minke whale, Canadian East coast. Pantropical spotted dolphin, Northern GMX. Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA. Pygmy sperm whale, GMX. Risso's dolphin, Northern GMX. Risso's dolphin, WNA. Short-finned pilot whale, Northern GMX. Short-finned pilot whale, WNA.1 Sperm whale, GMX oceanic. CATEGORY II GILLNET FISHERIES: Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet 2 272 None documented in the most recent five years of data. Gulf of Mexico gillnet 2 724 Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, and estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal. NC inshore gillnet 1,323 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern NC estuarine system.1 Northeast anchored float gillnet 2 995 Harbor seal, WNA. Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine. White-sided dolphin, WNA. Northeast drift gillnet 2 1,567 None documented. Southeast Atlantic gillnet 2 357 Bottlenose dolphin, Central FL coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern FL coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, SC/GA coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Southern migratory coastal. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 30 Bottlenose dolphin, unknown (Central FL, Northern FL, SC/GA coastal, or Southern migratory coastal). North Atlantic right whale, WNA. TRAWL FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 507 Risso's dolphin, WNA. White-sided dolphin, WNA.1 Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl 994 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore. Common dolphin, WNA.1 Gray seal, WNA. Harbor seal, WNA. Risso's dolphin, WNA.1 Northeast mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) 1,087 Gray seal, WNA. Harbor seal, WNA. Long-finned pilot whale, WNA.1 Common dolphin, WNA. Northeast bottom trawl 3,132 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore. Common dolphin, WNA. Gray seal, WNA. Harbor porpoise, GME/BF. Harbor seal, WNA. Harp seal, WNA. Long-finned pilot whale, WNA. Minke whale, Canadian East Coast. Risso's dolphin, WNA. White-sided dolphin, WNA.1 Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl 4,950 Atlantic spotted dolphin, GMX continental and oceanic. Bottlenose dolphin, Charleston estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine.1 Bottlenose dolphin, GMX continental shelf. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, SC/GA coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern migratory coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal.1 West Indian manatee, Florida. TRAP/POT FISHERIES: Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot 2 1,282 Bottlenose dolphin, Biscayne Bay estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Central FL coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, FL Bay. Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine (FL west coast portion). Bottlenose dolphin, Indian River Lagoon estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, Jacksonville estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal. Atlantic mixed species trap/pot 2 3,284 Fin whale, WNA. Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine. Atlantic blue crab trap/pot 8,557 Bottlenose dolphin, Central FL coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Central GA estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, Charleston estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Indian River Lagoon estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Jacksonville estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern FL coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GA/Southern SC estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern Migratory coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern SC estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, SC/GA coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern GA estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern Migratory coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern NC estuarine system.1 West Indian manatee, FL.1 PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 40-42 Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal.1 Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine2 19 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern Migratory coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Southern Migratory coastal. HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES: Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine 243 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern Migratory coastal.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern Migratory coastal.1 NC long haul seine 372 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine system.1 Bottlenose dolphin, Southern NC estuarine system. STOP NET FISHERIES: NC roe mullet stop net 13 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, unknown (Southern migratory coastal or Southern NC estuarine system). POUND NET FISHERIES: VA pound net 47 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern migratory coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, Southern Migratory coastal.1 CATEGORY III GILLNET FISHERIES: Caribbean gillnet >991 None documented in the most recent five years of data. DE River inshore gillnet Unknown None documented in the most recent five years of data. Long Island Sound inshore gillnet Unknown None documented in the most recent five years of data. RI, southern MA (to Monomoy Island), and NY Bight (Raritan and Lower NY Bays) inshore gillnet Unknown None documented in the most recent five years of data. Southeast Atlantic inshore gillnet Unknown Bottlenose dolphin, Northern SC estuarine system. TRAWL FISHERIES: Atlantic shellfish bottom trawl >58 None documented. Gulf of Mexico butterfish trawl 2 Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX oceanic. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX continental shelf. Gulf of Mexico mixed species trawl 20 None documented. GA cannonball jellyfish trawl 1 Bottlenose dolphin, SC/GA coastal. MARINE AQUACULTURE FISHERIES: Finfish aquaculture 48 Harbor seal, WNA. Shellfish aquaculture unknown None documented. PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine Atlantic herring purse seine >7 Harbor seal, WNA. Gray seal, WNA. Gulf of Maine menhaden purse seine >2 None documented. FL West Coast sardine purse seine 10 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal. U.S. Atlantic tuna purse seine * 5 Long-finned pilot whale, WNA. Short-finned pilot whale, WNA. LONGLINE/HOOK-AND-LINE FISHERIES: Northeast/Mid-Atlantic bottom longline/hook-and-line >1,207 None documented. Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic tuna, shark swordfish hook-and-line/harpoon 428 Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore. Humpback whale, Gulf of Maine. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean snapper-grouper and other reef fish bottom longline/hook-and-line >5,000 Bottlenose dolphin, GMX continental shelf. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shark bottom longline/hook-and-line <125 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX continental shelf. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean pelagic hook-and-line/harpoon 1,446 None documented. U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico trotline Unknown None documented. TRAP/POT FISHERIES Caribbean mixed species trap/pot >501 None documented. Caribbean spiny lobster trap/pot >197 None documented. FL spiny lobster trap/pot 1,268 Bottlenose dolphin, Biscayne Bay estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Central FL coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, FL Bay estuarine. Gulf of Mexico blue crab trap/pot 4,113 Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal. West Indian manatee, FL. Gulf of Mexico mixed species trap/pot unknown None documented. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico golden crab trap/pot 10 None documented. U.S. Mid-Atlantic eel trap/pot Unknown None documented. STOP SEINE/WEIR/POUND NET/FLOATING TRAP FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine herring and Atlantic mackerel stop seine/weir >1 Harbor porpoise, GME/BF. Harbor seal, WNA. Minke whale, Canadian east coast. Atlantic white-sided dolphin, WNA. U.S. Mid-Atlantic crab stop seine/weir 2,600 None documented. U.S. Mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound net (except the NC roe mullet stop net) Unknown Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine system. RI floating trap 9 None documented. DREDGE FISHERIES: Gulf of Maine sea urchin dredge Unknown None documented. Gulf of Maine mussel dredge Unknown None documented. Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic sea scallop dredge >403 None documented. Mid-Atlantic blue crab dredge Unknown None documented. Mid-Atlantic soft-shell clam dredge Unknown None documented. Mid-Atlantic whelk dredge Unknown None documented. U.S. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico oyster dredge 7,000 None documented. New England and Mid-Atlantic offshore surf clam/quahog dredge Unknown None documented. HAUL/BEACH SEINE FISHERIES: Caribbean haul/beach seine 15 None documented in the most recent five years of data. Gulf of Mexico haul/beach seine unknown None documented. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic haul/beach seine 25 None documented. DIVE, HAND/MECHANICAL COLLECTION FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean shellfish dive, hand/mechanical collection 20,000 None documented. Gulf of Maine urchin dive, hand/mechanical collection Unknown None documented. Gulf of Mexico, Southeast Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and Caribbean cast net Unknown None documented. COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL (CHARTER BOAT) FISHERIES: Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel 4,000 Bottlenose dolphin, Biscayne Bay estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Central FL coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Choctawhatchee Bay. Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, FL Bay. Bottlenose dolphin, GMX bay, sound, estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Indian River Lagoon estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, Jacksonville estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern FL coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GA/Southern SC estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern migratory coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern NC estuarine. Bottlenose dolphin, Southern migratory coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Southern NC estuarine system. Bottlenose dolphin, Southern SC/GA coastal. Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used in Table 2: DE—Delaware; FL—Florida; GA—Georgia; GME/BF—Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; GMX—Gulf of Mexico; MA—Massachusetts; NC—North Carolina; NY—New York; RI—Rhode Island; SC—South Carolina; VA—Virginia; WNA—Western North Atlantic; 1 Fishery classified based on mortalities and serious injuries of this stock, which are greater than or equal to 50 percent (Category I) or greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent (Category II) of the stock's PBR; 2 Fishery classified by analogy; * Fishery has an associated high seas component listed in Table 3.
    Table 3—List of Fisheries—Commercial Fisheries on the High Seas Fishery description Number of HSFCA
  • permits
  • Marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed
  • or injured
  • Category I LONGLINE FISHERIES: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species * 86 Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA. Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX oceanic. Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore. Common dolphin, WNA. Cuvier's beaked whale, WNA. False killer whale, WNA. Killer whale, GMX oceanic. Kogia spp. whale (Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale), WNA. Long-finned pilot whale, WNA. Mesoplodon beaked whale, WNA. Minke whale, Canadian East coast. Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA. Risso's dolphin, GMX. Risso's dolphin, WNA. Short-finned pilot whale, WNA. Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Deep-set component) *  135 Bottlenose dolphin, HI Pelagic. False killer whale, HI Pelagic. Pantropical spotted dolphin, HI. Risso's dolphin, HI. Short-finned pilot whale, HI. Sperm whale, HI. Striped dolphin, HI. DRIFT GILLNET FISHERIES: Pacific Highly Migratory Species  5 Long-beaked common dolphin, CA. Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA. Northern right-whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Category II DRIFT GILLNET FISHERIES: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 1 Undetermined. TRAWL FISHERIES: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species ** 1 Undetermined. CCAMLR 0 Antarctic fur seal. PURSE SEINE FISHERIES: South Pacific Tuna Fisheries 39 Undetermined. Western Pacific Pelagic 3 Undetermined. LONGLINE FISHERIES: CCAMLR 0 None documented. South Pacific Albacore Troll 15 Undetermined. South Pacific Tuna Fisheries ** 8 Undetermined. Western Pacific Pelagic (HI Shallow-set component) *  15 Blainville's beaked whale, HI. Bottlenose dolphin, HI Pelagic. False killer whale, HI Pelagic. Humpback whale, Central North Pacific. Kogia spp. whale (Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale), HI. Risso's dolphin, HI. Short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA. Short-finned pilot whale, HI. Striped dolphin, HI. HANDLINE/POLE AND LINE FISHERIES: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 3 Undetermined. Pacific Highly Migratory Species 50 Undetermined. South Pacific Albacore Troll 9 Undetermined. Western Pacific Pelagic 5 Undetermined. TROLL FISHERIES: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 2 Undetermined. South Pacific Albacore Troll 38 Undetermined. South Pacific Tuna Fisheries ** 5 Undetermined. Western Pacific Pelagic 21 Undetermined. Category III LONGLINE FISHERIES: Northwest Atlantic Bottom Longline 1 None documented. Pacific Highly Migratory Species * 126 None documented in the most recent 5 years of data. PURSE SEINE FISHERIES Pacific Highly Migratory Species *  8 None documented. TRAWL FISHERIES: Northwest Atlantic 1 None documented. TROLL FISHERIES: Pacific Highly Migratory Species * 243 None documented. List of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symbols Used in Table 3: CA—California; GMX- Gulf of Mexico; HI—Hawaii; OR—Oregon; WA—Washington; WNA—Western North Atlantic. * Fishery is an extension/component of an existing fishery operating within U.S. waters listed in Table 1 or 2. The number of permits listed in Table 3 represents only the number of permits for the high seas component of the fishery. ** These gear types are not authorized under the Pacific HMS FMP (2004), the Atlantic HMS FMP (2006), or without a South Pacific Tuna Treaty license (in the case of the South Pacific Tuna fisheries). Because HSFCA permits are valid for five years, permits obtained in past years exist in the HSFCA permit database for gear types that are now unauthorized. Therefore, while HSFCA permits exist for these gear types, it does not represent effort. In order to land fish species, fishers must be using an authorized gear type. Once these permits for unauthorized gear types expire, the permit-holder will be required to obtain a permit for an authorized gear type.  The list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in this fishery is identical to the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in U.S. waters component of the fishery, minus species and/or stocks that have geographic ranges exclusively in coastal waters, because the marine mammal species and/or stocks are also found on the high seas and the fishery remains the same on both sides of the EEZ boundary. Therefore, the high seas components of these fisheries pose the same risk to marine mammals as the components of these fisheries operating in U.S. waters.
    Table 4—Fisheries Affected by Take Reduction Teams and Plans Take reduction plans Affected fisheries Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP)—50 CFR 229.32 Category I
  • Mid-Atlantic gillnet.
  • Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot.
  • Northeast sink gillnet.
  • Category II Atlantic blue crab trap/pot. Atlantic mixed species trap/pot. Northeast anchored float gillnet. Northeast drift gillnet. Southeast Atlantic gillnet. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet * Southeastern, U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot  Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan (BDTRP)—50 CFR 229.35 Category I
  • Mid-Atlantic gillnet.
  • Category II Atlantic blue crab trap/pot. Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet fishery. Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine. Mid-Atlantic menhaden purse seine. NC inshore gillnet. NC long haul seine. NC roe mullet stop net. Southeast Atlantic gillnet. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet. Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl . Southeastern, U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot . VA pound net False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP)—50 CFR 229.37 Category I
  • HI deep-set longline.
  • Category II HI shallow-set longline. Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP)—50 CFR 229.33 (New England) and 229.34 (Mid-Atlantic) Category I
  • Mid-Atlantic gillnet.
  • Northeast sink gillnet.
  • Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP)—50 CFR 229.36 Category I
  • Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline.
  • Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (POCTRP)—50 CFR 229.31 Category I
  • CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh)
  • Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team (ATGTRT) Category II Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl. Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl). Northeast bottom trawl. Northeast mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) * Only applicable to the portion of the fishery operating in U.S. waters; Only applicable to the portion of the fishery operating in the Atlantic Ocean.
    Classification

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on that certification, and no new information has been discovered to change that conclusion. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of information for the registration of individuals under the MMPA has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0648-0293 (0.15 hours per report for new registrants and 0.09 hours per report for renewals). The requirement for reporting marine mammal mortalities or injuries has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report). These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the collections of information, including suggestions for reducing burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1995 and 2005. The 1995 EA examined the effects of regulations implementing section 118 of the 1994 Amendments of the MMPA on the affected environment. The 2005 EA analyzed the environmental impacts of continuing the existing scheme (as described in the 1995 EA) for classifying fisheries on the LOF. The 1995 EA and the 2005 EA concluded that implementation of MMPA section 118 regulations would not have a significant impact on the human environment. NMFS reviewed the 2005 EA in 2009. NMFS concluded that because there were no changes to the process used to develop the LOF and implement section 118 of the MMPA, there was no need to update the 2005 EA. This rule would not change NMFS's current process for classifying fisheries on the LOF; therefore, this rule is not expected to change the analysis or conclusion of the 2005 EA and FONSI, and no update is needed. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would first prepare an environmental document, as required under NEPA, specific to that action.

    This rule would not affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their associated critical habitat. The impacts of numerous fisheries have been analyzed in various biological opinions, and this rule will not affect the conclusions of those opinions. The classification of fisheries on the LOF is not considered to be a management action that would adversely affect threatened or endangered species. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would consult under ESA section 7 on that action.

    This rule would have no adverse impacts on marine mammals and may have a positive impact on marine mammals by improving knowledge of marine mammals and the fisheries interacting with marine mammals through information collected from observer programs, stranding and sighting data, or take reduction teams.

    This rule would not affect the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    References

    Allen, B.M. and R.P. Angliss, editors. 2015. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2014. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-301. 270 p.

    Boggs, C.H., D.P. Gonzales, and R.M. Kokubun. 2015. Marine mammals reported under catch lost to predators on fishermen's commercial catch reports to the State of Hawaii, 2003-2014. NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Data Report DR-15-006. 14 p.

    Carretta, J.V., E. Oleson, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, K.A. Forney, J. Baker, B. Hanson, K Martien, M.M. Muto, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R.L. Brownell Jr., D.K. Mattila, and M.C. Hill. 2015. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2014. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-549. 78 p.

    Hatfield, B.B., J.A. Ames, J.A. Estes, M.T. Tinker, A.B. Johnson, M.M. Staedler, and M.D. Harris. 2011. Sea otter mortality in fish and shellfish traps: estimating potential impacts and exploring possible solutions. Endangered Species Research 13:219-229.

    McCracken, M.L. 2010. Adjustments to false killer whale and short-finned pilot whale bycatch estimates. NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Working Paper WP-10-007. 23 p.

    McCracken, M.L. 2014. Assessment of Incidental Interactions with Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Deep and Shallow Set Fisheries from 2008 through 2012. NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Internal Report IR-14-006. 1 p. + Excel spreadsheet.

    NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Evaluating bycatch: a national approach to standardized bycatch monitoring programs. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSF/SPO-66, 108 p. On-line version, http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm.

    Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, editors. 2015a. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stocks Assessments, 2014. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-NE-231. 355 p.

    Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, editors. 2015b. Draft U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stocks Assessments, 2015. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-NE-xxx. 524 p. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/atl2015_draft.pdf.

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08114 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 68 Friday, April 8, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0004] RIN 0579-AE12 Importation of Fresh Pitahaya Fruit From Ecuador Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit into the continental United States from Ecuador. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, approved production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach. This action would allow for the importation of fresh pitahaya from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0004.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0004, 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-2015-0004 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:

    Ms. Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, (301) 851-2352; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-75, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests. The regulations currently do not authorize the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit (sometimes referred to as “dragon fruit”) from Ecuador.

    The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations in order to allow fresh fruit of any color of pitahaya (Hylocereus spp., Acanthocereus spp., Cereus spp., Echinocereus spp., Escontria spp., Myrtillocactus spp., and Stenocereus spp.) to be imported into the continental United States. (Hereafter we refer to these species as “pitahaya.”)

    As part of our evaluation of Ecuador's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The PRA, titled “Importation of Pitahaya from Ecuador into the Continental United States (August 2013),” evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit from Ecuador into the United States. The RMD relies upon the findings of the PRA to determine the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the continental United States of fresh pitahaya from Ecuador.

    The PRA identifies one quarantine pest present in Ecuador that could be introduced into the United States through the importation of fresh pitahaya: Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), South American fruit fly.

    A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations as a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. Potential plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh pitahaya from Ecuador into the continental United States were determined by estimating the consequences and likelihood of introduction of quarantine pests into the United States and ranking the risk potential as high, medium, or low. The PRA rated the insect A. fraterculus as having a high pest risk potential for following the pathway of fresh pitahaya from Ecuador into the continental United States.

    APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by this plant pest. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of fresh pitahaya from Ecuador into the continental United States produced under a systems approach. The RMD prepared for fresh pitahaya from Ecuador identifies a systems approach of specific mitigation measures against the quarantine pest identified in the PRA and concludes that those measures, along with the general requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables in the regulations, will be sufficient to prevent the introduction of this pest into the United States. Therefore, we are proposing to add the systems approach to the regulations in a new § 319.56-76. The proposed measures are described below.

    General Requirements

    Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of Ecuador to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56-76. An operational workplan is an agreement developed between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require fresh pitahaya from Ecuador to be imported in commercial consignments only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.

    Production Site Requirements

    Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require that all production sites participating in the fresh pitahaya export program be approved by and registered with the NPPO of Ecuador in accordance with the requirements of the operational workplan. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of pitahayas to the production site in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the packinghouse, or at the first port of arrival into the United States.

    Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require that trees and other structures, other than the crop itself, not shade the crop during the day. No other host of A. fraterculus would be permitted to be grown within 100 meters of the edge of the field. Pitahaya fruit that has fallen on the ground would have to be removed from the place of production at least once every 7 days and may not be included in field containers of fruit to be packed for export. Harvested pitahayas would have to be placed in field cartons or containers that are marked to show the place of production so that traceback is possible.

    Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of Ecuador or its approved designee 1 to visit and inspect the production sites prior to each harvest in accordance with the operational workplan. APHIS may also monitor the places of production if necessary. If APHIS or the NPPO of Ecuador finds that a place of production is not complying with the requirements of the systems approach, no fruit from the place of production will be eligible for export to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

    1 An approved designee is an entity with which the NPPO creates a formal agreement that allows that entity to certify that the appropriate procedures have been followed. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.

    Paragraph (c)(4) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require trapping for the fruit fly A. fraterculus at each production site in accordance with the operational workplan. The NPPO of Ecuador would have to certify that exporting places of production have effective fruit fly trapping programs and follow control guidelines, when necessary, to reduce regulated pest populations. Personnel conducting the trapping and pest surveys would need to be hired, trained, and supervised by the NPPO of Ecuador. The trapping would have to begin at least 1 year before harvest begins and continue through the completion of harvest.

    Paragraph (c)(5) would state that, if more than an average of 0.07 A. fraterculus per trap per day is trapped for more than 2 consecutive weeks, the production site would be ineligible for export until the rate of capture drops to less than that average. If levels exceed that average, from 2 months prior to harvest to the end of the shipping season, the production site would be prohibited from shipping under the systems approach until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador both agree that the pest risk has been mitigated. As conditions warrant, the average number of A. fraterculus per trap per day may be raised or lowered if jointly agreed to between APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador in the operational workplan.

    Paragraph (c)(6) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of Ecuador to maintain records of trap placement, trap checks, and any quarantine pest captures in accordance with the operational workplan. Trapping records would have to be maintained for APHIS' review for at least 1 year.

    Packinghouse Requirements

    We are proposing several requirements for packinghouse activities, which would be contained in paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56-76.

    Paragraph (d)(1) would state that the NPPO of Ecuador must monitor packinghouse operations to verify that the packinghouses are complying with the requirements of the systems approach. If the NPPO of Ecuador finds that a packinghouse is not complying with the requirements of the systems approach, no pitahaya fruit from the packinghouse will be eligible for export to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador conduct an investigation and both agree that the pest risk has been mitigated.

    Paragraph (d)(2) would require that fresh pitahaya be packed in a packinghouse registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of pitahaya fruit to the packinghouse in which it was packed in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the United States.

    Paragraph (d)(3) would require that the pitahaya be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse that meets the requirements of the operational workplan. The pitahaya would have to be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. These safeguards would have to remain intact until arrival in the continental United States or the consignment would be denied entry.

    Paragraph (d)(4) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require that during the time that the packinghouse is in use for exporting fresh pitahayas to the continental United States, the packinghouse would only be allowed to accept pitahayas from registered production sites. This requirement would prevent such pitahayas intended for export to the continental United States from being exposed to or otherwise mixed with pitahayas that are not produced according to the requirements of the systems approach.

    Phytosanitary Inspection

    Paragraph (e)(1) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require that a biometric sample of pitahaya fruit jointly agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador would need to be inspected in Ecuador by the NPPO of Ecuador following post-harvest processing. The biometric sample would be visually inspected for any quarantine pests, and a portion of the fruit would be cut open to detect internal signs of A. fraterculus.

    Paragraph (e)(2) would require that fruit presented for inspection at the port of entry to the United States be identified in the shipping documents accompanying each lot of fruit to specify the production site or sites, in which the fruit was produced, and the packing shed or sheds, in which the fruit was processed, in accordance with the requirements in the operational workplan. This identification would need to be maintained until the fruit is released for entry into the continental United States. The pitahaya fruit are subject to inspection at the port of entry for all quarantine pests of concern, including A. fraterculus. If a single larva of A. fraterculus is found in a shipment from a place of production (either by the NPPO in Ecuador or by inspectors at the continental United States port of entry), the entire lot of fruit would be prohibited from entry into the United States, and the place of production of that fruit would be suspended from the export program until appropriate measures, as agreed upon by the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS, have been taken.

    Phytosanitary Certificate

    To certify that the fresh pitahaya fruit from Ecuador has been grown and packed in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 319.56-76, paragraph (f) would require each consignment of fruit to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador, with an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-76.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed rule has been determined to be Not Significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.

    The proposed rule would amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh pitahaya (of any color) (Hylocereus spp., Acanthocereus spp., Cereus spp., Echinocereus spp., Escontria spp., Myrtillocactus spp., and Stenocereus spp.) from Ecuador into the continental United States under a systems approach. Entities potentially affected by the proposed rule are U.S. pitahaya fruit growers, of which most, if not all, are small entities.

    APHIS has been marginally successful in acquiring information on the U.S. market for pitahaya fruit. At this point, we do not know the quantity of pitahaya fruit domestically produced, numbers of U.S. producers, the total quantity imported, or other factors needed to assess likely economic effects of this rule. Vietnam, the largest exporter of pitahaya to the United States, shipped 1,300 metric tons of the fruit to the United States in 2013. It is unknown what percentage of the total supply this represents. Domestically, pitahaya fruit is produced in Hawaii, California, and Florida. Hawaii's pitahaya production is mainly consumed within that State.

    The quantity of pitahaya fruit that would be imported from Ecuador is unknown. In 2014, Ecuador exported about 165 metric tons of pitahaya to 32 countries. They have indicated that, if this proposed rule is finalized, they expect to divert 147 shipments to the United States per year. Given that there is no consistent indication of the expected individual size of these shipments, it is unknown what percentage of the total exported tonnage this would represent, or the total quantity of these shipments. Lack of information about the quantity of pitahaya fruit that would be imported, and about the quantities produced by the United States, prevents a clear understanding of what the economic effects of the proposed rule may be.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh pitahaya to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh pitahaya imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruit are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0004. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) APHIS, using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

    APHIS is proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit into the continental United States from Ecuador. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements in the systems approach.

    This action would allow for the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

    Allowing the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit into the continental United States from Ecuador would require an operational workplan, registered production sites, trapping records, inspections, monitoring, packinghouse registrations, box labeling, shipping documents, and phytosanitary certificates.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.003 hours per response.

    Respondents: NPPO of Ecuador, producers, and exporters.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 132.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1,367.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 180,561.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 673 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.)

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    International Trade Data System

    The Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 2 (“SAFE Act”) requires the interagency establishment of a single portal system, known as the International Trade Data System (ITDS), to be operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This unified data system electronically collects and distributes import and export data required by government agencies that license or clear the import or export of goods. ITDS provides individuals and companies involved in the international trade of plants and plant products, including pitahaya from Ecuador, with an electronic format to secure necessary certifications, complete required forms, and provide information about the requirements and regulations relevant to the commodity of interest.

    2 Public Law 109-347, October 13, 2006.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

    PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.56-76 is added to read as follows:
    § 319.56-76 Pitahaya from Ecuador.

    Fresh pitahaya (Hylocereus spp., Acanthocereus spp., Cereus spp., Echinocereus spp., Escontria spp., Myrtillocactus spp., and Stenocereus spp.) from Ecuador may be imported into the continental United States only under the conditions described in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the following quarantine pest: Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), South American fruit fly.

    (a) General requirements. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details activities that the NPPO of Ecuador will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section. The operational workplan must include and describe the specific requirements as set forth in this section.

    (b) Commercial consignments. Pitahaya from Ecuador may be imported in commercial consignments only.

    (c) Production site requirements. (1) All production sites that participate in the pitahaya export program must be approved by and registered with the NPPO of Ecuador in accordance with the operational workplan.

    (2) Trees and other structures, other than the crop itself, must not shade the crop during the day. No other host of A. fraterculus is permitted to be grown within 100 meters of the edge of the field. Pitahaya fruit that has fallen on the ground must be removed from the place of production at least once every 7 days and may not be included in field containers of fruit to be packed for export. Harvested pitahayas must be placed in field cartons or containers that are marked to show the place of production so that traceback is possible.

    (3) The production sites must be inspected prior to each harvest by the NPPO of Ecuador or its approved designee in accordance with the operational workplan. An approved designee is an entity with which the NPPO creates a formal agreement that allows that entity to certify that the appropriate procedures have been followed. If APHIS or the NPPO of Ecuador finds that a place of production is not complying with the requirements of the systems approach, no fruit from the place of production will be eligible for export to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

    (4) The registered production sites must conduct trapping for the fruit fly A. fraterculus at each production site in accordance with the operational workplan. Personnel conducting the trapping and pest surveys must be hired, trained, and supervised by the NPPO of Ecuador. The trapping must begin at least 1 year before harvest begins and continue through the completion of harvest.

    (5) If more than an average of 0.07 A. fraterculus per trap per day is trapped for more than 2 consecutive weeks, the production site will be ineligible for export until the rate of capture drops to less than that average. If levels exceed that average per trap per day, from 2 months prior to harvest to the end of the shipping season, the production site will be prohibited from shipping under the systems approach until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador both agree that the pest risk has been mitigated. As conditions warrant, the average number of A. fraterculus per trap per day may be raised or lowered if jointly agreed to between APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador in the operational workplan.

    (6) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and any quarantine pest captures in accordance with the operational workplan. Trapping records must be maintained for APHIS review for at least 1 year.

    (d) Packinghouse requirements. (1) The NPPO of Ecuador must monitor packinghouse operations to verify that the packinghouses are complying with the requirements of the systems approach. If the NPPO of Ecuador finds that a packinghouse is not complying with the requirements of the systems approach, no pitahaya fruit from the packinghouse will be eligible for export to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador conduct an investigation and both agree that the pest risk has been mitigated.

    (2) All packinghouses that participate in the pitahaya export program must be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.

    (3) The pitahaya fruit must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The pitahaya must be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. These safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the continental United States or the consignment will be denied entry.

    (4) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting pitahaya fruit to the continental United States, the packinghouse may only accept pitahaya fruit from registered production sites.

    (e) Phytosanitary inspection. (1) A biometric sample of pitahaya fruit (jointly agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO) must be inspected in Ecuador by the NPPO of Ecuador following post-harvest processing. The biometric sample must be visually inspected for any quarantine pests, and a portion of the fruit will be cut open to detect internal signs of A. fraterculus.

    (2) Pitahaya fruit presented for inspection at the port of entry to the United States must be identified in the shipping documents accompanying each lot of fruit to specify the production site or sites, in which the fruit was produced, and the packing shed or sheds, in which the fruit was processed, in accordance with the requirements in the operational workplan. This identification must be maintained until the fruit is released for entry into the continental United States. The pitahaya fruit are subject to inspection at the port of entry for all quarantine pests of concern, including A. fraterculus. If a single larva of A. fraterculus is found in a shipment from a place of production (either by the NPPO in Ecuador or by inspectors at the continental United States port of entry), the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from export, and the place of production of that fruit will be suspended from the export program until appropriate measures agreed upon by the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS have been taken.

    (f) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of pitahaya fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador bearing the additional declaration that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-76.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of April 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08189 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 217 [Regulation Q; Docket No. R-1535] RIN 7100 AE-49 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Implementation of Capital Requirements for Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is inviting public comment on proposed clarifying revisions (proposed rule) to the Board's rule regarding risk-based capital surcharges for U.S. based global systemically important bank holding companies (GSIB surcharge rule). The proposed rule proposed rule would modify the GSIB surcharge rule to provide that a bank holding company subject to the rule would continue to calculate its method 1 and method 2 GSIB surcharge scores annually using data as of December 31 of the previous calendar year, even though the data will be due quarterly beginning with the June 30, 2016, report. In addition, the proposed rule would clarify that a bank holding company subject to the GSIB surcharge rule is required to calculate its method 2 GSIB surcharge score using systemic indicator amounts expressed in billions of dollars even though the data is reported in millions of dollars. The preamble to the proposed rule also provides clarifying information on how a covered bank holding company should calculate its short-term wholesale funding score for purposes of calculating its method 2 score under the GSIB surcharge rule.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received May 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When submitting comments, please consider submitting your comments by email or fax because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Board may be subject to delay. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1535 and RIN 7100 AE-49, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Address to Robert de V. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments will be made available on the Board's Web site at www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna Lee Hewko, Associate Director, (202) 530-6260, Constance M. Horsley, Assistant Director, (202) 452-5239, Juan C. Climent, Manager, (202) 872-7526, or Holly Kirkpatrick, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2796, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; or Benjamin McDonough, Special Counsel, (202) 452-2036, Mark Buresh, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-5270, or Mary Watkins, Attorney, (202) 452-3722, Legal Division. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background III. Revision Related to FR Y-15 Reporting Frequency IV. Revision To Clarify the Method 2 Score Calculation V. Clarification of the Transitional Short-Term Wholesale Funding Score Calculation VI. Request for Comment VII. Regulatory Analysis A. Paperwork Reduction Act B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis C. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 D. Plain Language Introduction

    Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) authorizes the Board to establish enhanced prudential standards for bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets and for nonbank financial companies that the Financial Stability Oversight Council has designated for supervision by the Board.1 These standards must include risk-based capital requirements as well as other enumerated standards. In July 2015, the Board adopted the GSIB surcharge rule, pursuant to section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, to identify global systemically important bank holding companies and impose a risk-based capital surcharge on those institutions.2

    1See 12 U.S.C. 5365.

    2 80 FR 49082 (August 14, 2015).

    II. Background

    The GSIB surcharge rule works to mitigate the potential risk that the material financial distress or failure of a GSIB could pose to U.S. financial stability by increasing the stringency of capital standards for GSIBs, thereby increasing the resiliency of these firms. The GSIB surcharge rule takes into consideration the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, and mix of activities of each company subject to the rule. These factors are reflected in the GSIB surcharge rule's method 1 and method 2 scores, which use quantitative metrics reported on the FR Y 15 reporting form to measure the firm's systemic footprint. A bank holding company whose method 1 score exceeds a defined threshold is identified as a GSIB. Bank holding companies that are identified as GSIBs under the GSIB surcharge rule must calculate their method 1 and method 2 scores each year using data reported on a firm's FR Y-15 as of December 31 of the prior year. GSIB surcharges are established using these scores, and GSIBs with higher scores are subject to higher GSIB surcharges.

    Method 1 uses five equally-weighted categories that are correlated with systemic importance—size, interconnectedness, cross-jurisdictional activity, substitutability, and complexity—and these categories are subdivided into twelve systemic indicators.3 For each systemic indicator, a firm divides its own measure of the systemic indicator by an aggregate global indicator amount. Each resulting value is then weighted and put onto a standard scale. The firm's method 1 score is the sum of its weighted systemic indicator scores. Method 2 uses similar inputs to those used in method 1, but replaces the substitutability category with a measure of a firm's use of short-term wholesale funding.4 The GSIB surcharge for the firm is the higher of the two surcharges determined under method 1 and method 2.5 Method 2 is calibrated differently from method 1 and method 2 generally results in a higher GSIB surcharge.

    3 12 CFR 217.404.

    4 12 CFR 217.405.

    5 12 CFR 217.403.

    The FR Y-15 reporting form collects systemic risk data from U.S. bank holding companies and covered savings and loan holding companies 6 with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. The Federal Reserve primarily uses the FR Y-15 data to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the systemic risk profile of the institutions that are subject to enhanced prudential standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The information reported on the FR Y-15 is also used in the calculation of a bank holding company's method 1 and method 2 scores under the GSIB surcharge rule. Currently, the FR Y-15 requires reporting of the components used in calculating the method 1 and method 2 scores on the FR Y-15, but does not require reporting of the scores themselves.7

    6 Covered savings and loan holding companies are those which are not substantially engaged in insurance or commercial activities. For more information, see the definition of “covered savings and loan holding company” provided in 12 CFR 217.2.

    7 Beginning on January 1, 2016, a bank holding company that is subject to a GSIB surcharge is required to report its applicable GSIB surcharge on line 67 of the FFIEC 101 report.

    III. Revisions Related to FR Y-15 Reporting Frequency

    The FR Y-15, as implemented on December 31, 2012, is an annual report that collects data regarding a firm's systemic risk.8 The Board recently adopted revisions to the FR Y-15 that include requiring the FR Y-15 to be filed on a quarterly basis, beginning with the report as of June 30, 2016.9 Under the GSIB surcharge rule, bank holding companies are required to calculate their method 1 and method 2 scores using data from the most recent FR Y-15.10 At the time the GSIB surcharge rule was adopted, these calculations were intended to be conducted annually consistent with the frequency of the FR Y-15 and using data as of December 31 of the prior calendar year.

    8See 77 FR 76487 (December 28, 2012). The Board subsequently revised the FR Y-15 in December 2013. See 78 FR 77128 (December 20, 2013).

    9 80 FR 77344 (December 14, 2015).

    10 80 FR 49082 (August 14, 2015).

    The proposed rule would revise the GSIB surcharge rule to require continued use of a December 31 as-of date for purposes of a bank holding company's calculation of its method 1 and method 2 scores. In particular, the proposed rule would revise sections 217.404 and 217.405 of the GSIB surcharge rule, which are the sections that describe the methodology for calculating a firm's method 1 and method 2 scores, respectively. The revisions to sections 217.404 and 217.405 would clarify that the systemic indicator amount used in the calculations would be drawn from a firm's FR Y-15 as of December 31 of the previous calendar year even after the FR Y-15 becomes a quarterly report.

    IV. Revision To Clarify the Method 2 Score Calculation

    The proposed rule would revise section 217.405 of the Board's Regulation Q to clarify that, for purposes of calculating its method 2 score, a GSIB should convert its systemic indicator amounts as reported on the FR Y-15 in millions of dollars to billions of dollars. The FR Y-15 requires these data to be reported in millions of dollars, while the fixed coefficients used in the calculation of a firm's method 2 score were determined using aggregate data expressed in billions of dollars.11 Therefore, to properly use the fixed coefficients in the method 2 score methodology, a firm should reflect its systemic indicator amounts used in the method 2 score calculation in billions of dollars.

    11See 80 FR 49082, 49088.

    V. Clarification of the Short-Term Wholesale Funding Method 2 Score Calculation

    A firm subject to the GSIB surcharge rule must calculate a short-term wholesale funding score in order to calculate the denominator of its method 2 GSIB surcharge, if any.12 Some firms subject to the GSIB surcharge rule have requested clarification on what the appropriate denominator should be for determining the short-term wholesale funding score during the transitional period before the GSIB surcharge becomes fully phased in. Consistent with the definition in the GSIB surcharge rule, the draft Federal Register notice would state that, for purposes of calculating this denominator during the transitional period, the average risk-weighted assets used in determining a firm's short-term wholesale funding score is the four-quarter average of total risk-weighted assets associated with the lower of the firm's common equity tier 1 capital ratios, as reported on the firm's FR Y-9C for each quarter of the previous calendar year.13

    12 12 CFR 217.401(c).

    13 12 CFR 217.401(c).

    As it relates to the numerator used in the short-term wholesale funding score calculation, the GSIB surcharge rule contains a transition provision that directs firms identified as GSIBs to determine the average of their weighted short-term wholesale funding amounts for the GSIB surcharge in effect beginning January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2017, by averaging their weighted short-term wholesale funding amounts on July 31, 2015, August 24, 2015, and September 30, 2015.14 These transition arrangements relate only to the calculation of a firm's average weighted short-term wholesale funding amount that is used as a component of the calculation of a firm's short-term wholesale funding score for the GSIB surcharges in effect during calendar year 2016 and calendar year 2017. These transition arrangements do not affect any other amount used in the calculation of a firm's short-term wholesale funding score, method 2 score, method 1 score, or GSIB surcharge. This is described further in the table below.

    14 12 CFR 217.400(b)(3). The funding sources were defined using terminology from the Liquidity Coverage Ratio rule (12 CFR part 249) and aligned with items that are reported on the Board's Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report on Form FR 2052a.

    GSIB Surcharge Calculation During the Transitional Period Surcharges
  • calculated in:
  • Using indicator data reported on the FR Y-15 as of: Using short-term wholesale
  • funding calculated as the average of the weighted amounts for the
  • following days
  • (numerator):
  • Using RWAs in the short-term wholesale funding metric
  • calculated as the
  • 4-quarter
  • average over the year
  • (denominator):
  • Resulting in a GSIB surcharge in effect on: If the surcharge
  • decreases, then it is in effect on:
  • December 2015 December 31, 2014 July 31, August 24, and September 30, 2015 2014 January 1, 2016
  • January 1, 2017
  • December 2016 December 31, 2015 July 31, August 24, and September 30, 2015 2015 January 1, 2018 January 1, 2017 December 2017 December 31, 2016 2016 daily values 2016 January 1, 2019 January 1, 2018 December 2018 December 31, 2017 2017 daily values 2017 January 1, 2020 January 1, 2019 December [Year] December 31, [Year−1] [Year−1] daily values [Year−1] January 1, [Year + 2] January 1, [Year + 1]
    VI. Request for Comment

    The Board seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed revisions to the GSIB surcharge rule.

    VII. Regulatory Analysis A. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    There is no new collection of information pursuant to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) contained in this proposed rule.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Board is providing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to this proposed rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), generally requires that an agency prepare and make available an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking. Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a small entity includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with assets of $550 million or less (small banking organizations).15 As of December 31, 2014, there were approximately 3,833 small bank holding companies.

    15See 13 CFR 121.201. Effective July 14, 2014, the Small Business Administration revised the size standards for banking organizations to $550 million in assets from $500 million in assets. 79 FR 33647 (June 12, 2014).

    The proposed rule would apply only to advanced approaches bank holding companies, which, generally, are bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $250 billion or more, that have total consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposures of $10 billion or more, that have subsidiary depository institutions that are advanced approaches institutions, or that elect to use the advanced approaches framework.16 Bank holding companies that are subject to the proposed rule therefore are expected to substantially exceed the $550 million asset threshold at which a banking entity would qualify as a small bank holding company.

    16See 12 CFR 217.100.

    Because the proposed rule is not likely to apply to any bank holding company with assets of $550 million or less, if adopted in final form, it is not expected to apply to any small bank holding company for purposes of the RFA. The Board does not believe that the proposed rule duplicates, overlaps, or conflicts with any other Federal rules. In light of the foregoing, the Board does not believe that the proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nonetheless, the Board seeks comment on whether the proposed rule would impose undue burdens on, or have unintended consequences for, small organizations, and whether there are ways such potential burdens or consequences could be minimized in a manner consistent with the purpose of the proposed rule.

    C. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

    In determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on state member banks, the Board is required to consider, consistent with the principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, and the benefits of such regulations.17 In addition, new regulations that impose additional reporting disclosures or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.18

    17See Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (“RCDRIA”), 12 U.S.C. 4802.

    18 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).

    The proposed revision to the Board's GSIB surcharge rule are only applicable to advanced approaches bank holding companies. Therefore, these requirements are not applicable to this proposed rule.

    D. Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Board to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board has sought to present the proposed rule in a simple straightforward manner, and invites comment on the use of plain language. For example:

    • Has the Board organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could the Board present the proposed rule more clearly?

    • Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?

    • Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?

    • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?

    • Is the section format adequate? If not, which of the sections should be changed and how?

    • What other changes can the Board incorporate to make the regulation easier to understand?

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 217

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR CHAPTER II Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 217—CAPITAL ADEQUACY OF BANK HOLDING COMPANIES, SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANIES, AND STATE MEMBER BANKS (REGULATION Q) 1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1462a, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1851, 3904, 3906-3909, 4808, 5365, 5368, 5371.

    2. In § 217.404, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
    § 217.404 Method 1 score.

    (b) Systemic indicator score. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the systemic indicator score in basis points for a given systemic indicator is equal to:

    (i) The ratio of:

    (A) The amount of that systemic indicator, as reported by the bank holding company as of December 31 of the previous calendar year; to

    (B) The aggregate global indicator amount for that systemic indicator published by the Board in the fourth quarter of that year;

    (ii) Multiplied by 10,000; and

    (iii) Multiplied by the indicator weight corresponding to the systemic indicator as set forth in Table 1 of this section.

    3. In § 217.405, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
    § 217.405 Method 2 score.

    (b) Systemic indicator score. A global systemically important BHC's score for a systemic indicator is equal to:

    (1) The amount of the systemic indicator, as reported by the bank holding company as of December 31 of the previous calendar year, expressed in billions of dollars;

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08015 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 Proposed Modification of the San Diego, CA, Class B Airspace Area; Public Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces three fact-finding informal airspace meetings to solicit information from airspace users and others concerning a proposal to amend the Class B airspace area at San Diego, CA. The purpose of these meetings is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present views, recommendations, and comments on the proposal. All comments received during these meetings will be considered prior to any revision or issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 6:00 p.m.; Wednesday, June 29, 2016, at 6:00 p.m.; and Thursday, June 30, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. Doors open 30 minutes prior to the beginning of each meeting. Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All meetings will be held at San Diego International Airport, Commuter Airport Terminal, 3225 North Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Comments: Send comments on the proposal, in triplicate, to: Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Air Traffic Organization Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057, or by fax to (425) 203-4505.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Fagan, FAA Support Manager, Southern California TRACON, 9175 Kearny Villa Rd, San Diego, CA 92126, (858) 537-5830.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Meeting Procedures

    (a) The meetings will be informal in nature and will be conducted by one or more representatives of the FAA Western Service Center and Southern California TRACON. A representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the planned modification to the Class B airspace at San Diego, CA. Each participant will be given an opportunity to deliver comments or make a presentation, although a time limit may be imposed. Only comments concerning the plan to modify the San Diego Class B airspace will be accepted.

    (b) The meetings will be open to all persons on a space-available basis. There will be no admission fee to attend and participate. Parking will be validated. Attendees needing parking validation should bring their parking stub to the meeting.

    (c) Any person wishing to make a presentation to the FAA panel will be asked to sign in and estimate the amount of time needed for such presentation. This will permit the panel to allocate an appropriate amount of time for each presenter. These meetings will not be adjourned until everyone on the list has had an opportunity to address the panel.

    (d) Position papers or other handout material relating to the substance of these meetings will be accepted. Participants wishing to submit handout material should present an original and two copies (three copies total) to the presiding officer. There should be additional copies of each handout available for other attendees.

    (e) These meetings will not be formally recorded. However, a summary of comments made at the meeting will be filed in the docket.

    Agenda for the Meetings —Sign-in —Presentation of Meeting Procedures —Informal Presentation of the Planned Class B Airspace Area Modifications —Solicitation of Public Comments —Stations of Interest on Class B airspace area modification —Drop box for written comments Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 4, 2016. Gemechu Gelgelu, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08124 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 1 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 241 [Release No. 33-10062; 34-77506; File No. S7-05-16] RIN 3235-AL93 Certain Natural Gas and Electric Power Contracts AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed guidance.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 712(d)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), after consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board of Governors”), are jointly issuing the CFTC's proposed guidance on certain contracts that provide for rights and obligations with respect to electric power and natural gas. The CFTC invites public comment on all aspects of its proposed guidance.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    CFTC Web site: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Comments Online process on the Web site.

    Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one of these methods.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the CFTC to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the CFTC's regulations, 17 CFR 145.9.

    The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of a submission from www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the notice will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under all applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CFTC: David N. Pepper, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, at (202) 418-5565 or [email protected]; or Mark Fajfar, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 418-6636 or [email protected], Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. SEC: Carol McGee, Assistant Director, Office of Derivatives Policy, Division of Trading and Markets, at (202) 551-5870, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    In the final rule further defining the term “swap,” the CFTC and the SEC adopted an interpretation regarding the facts and circumstances in which certain agreements, contracts, or transactions entered into by commercial and non-profit entities should be considered not to be swaps because they are customary commercial arrangements.1 Following adoption of this interpretation, the CFTC received public comments describing certain types of contracts that are closely tied to regulatory obligations in the markets for electric power and natural gas.2

    1See Further Definition of “Swap,” Security-Based Swap,” and “Security-Based Swap Agreement”; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48207, 48246 (Aug. 13, 2012) (the “Products Release”).

    2 The comments were received in response to the CFTC's proposed interpretation on Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality, 79 FR 69073 (Nov. 20, 2014) (comments available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1541), and the CFTC's notice of proposed rulemaking on Trade Options, 80 FR 26200 (May 7, 2015) (comments available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1580). In addition, the CFTC's Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee discussed related issues at its meeting on July 29, 2015 (transcript available at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_eemac072915).

    Having reviewed these comments, the CFTC proposes to issue guidance regarding particular facts and specific circumstances in which these contracts should be considered not to be “swaps” for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”).3 This proposed guidance applies the interpretation in the Products Release to the contracts described in Part II.A. of this document and the CFTC preliminarily concludes that such contracts should be considered not to be swaps because they are customary commercial arrangements.

    3See 7 U.S.C. 1a(47). This proposed guidance is being issued jointly with the SEC pursuant to section 712(d)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act but, given the specific types of contracts at issue, pertains only to the CFTC and swaps. Because the proposed guidance is limited to the particular facts and circumstances of the contracts at issue, the proposed guidance, if adopted, would not pertain to the SEC or security-based swaps.

    II. Proposed Guidance A. Commenters' Description of Certain Contracts

    Commenters described two types of contracts that are similar in some respects, but are used in different situations to provide for rights and obligations that are suitable to the parties' particular needs in those situations, and which are closely tied to compliance with certain regulatory requirements and frameworks. Each is described briefly below.

    1. Certain Capacity Contracts—Electric Power

    The CFTC understands that certain types of capacity contracts in electric power markets are used in situations where regulatory requirements from a state public utility commission (“PUC”) obligate load serving entities (“LSEs”) and load serving electric utilities in that state to purchase “capacity” (sometimes referred to as “resource adequacy”) 4 from suppliers to secure grid management and on-demand deliverability of power to consumers. A commenter explained that the LSE or load serving electric utility will be recognized by the PUC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) as having purchased capacity and, therefore, having satisfied that portion of its obligation to purchase the ability to supply the electricity when and as needed.5 In each of these instances, a commenter asserted, the purchaser, as required by law, will be considered to have purchased the supplier's capacity to generate, produce and deliver electric power, regardless of whether the electricity underlying the capacity contract is called upon and delivered.6

    4 The resource adequacy framework adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) is an illustrative example. The CPUC adopted a resource adequacy policy framework in 2004 in order to ensure the reliability of electric service in California. The CPUC established resource adequacy obligations applicable to all LSEs within the CPUC's jurisdiction. The CPUC's resource adequacy policy framework—implemented as the Resource Adequacy program—guides resource procurement and promotes infrastructure investment by requiring that LSEs procure capacity so that capacity is available to the California Independent System Operator (“ISO”) when and where needed. See generally the discussion of resource adequacy available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ra/.

    5See letter from International Energy Credit Association (“IECA”) (June 22, 2015) at 9. The CFTC understands that this type of contract enables a Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) or ISO to call on resource adequacy capacity to ensure the reliability of electric service to end users or consumers. The LSE or load serving electric utility, which is required to purchase capacity contracts, cannot itself call on the supplier to deliver electricity—only the RTO or ISO can.

    6See id.

    A commenter said the purchaser does not treat this type of capacity contract as a “hedge” in the same sense as it would otherwise use a commodity option as a financial hedge.7 In this type of capacity contract, the commenter contended, the purchaser is not procuring the right to profit from a change in the value of the underlying commodity, which the purchaser will then financially settle in order to offset the price volatility risk of some underlying physical transaction in the cash market.8 Rather, the purchaser is purchasing a supplier's capacity to produce, generate, and deliver the underlying electricity, thereby ensuring its ability to supply electricity in compliance with a regulatory requirement.9 Certain commenters explained that they do not view these contracts as financial instruments, but rather as commercial agreements that enable the purchaser of capacity to ensure that the underlying electricity is delivered when needed by the purchaser to meet state- and/or federally-required reliability objectives.10 One commenter stated that state PUCs and the FERC generally do not treat a purchase of capacity in this context as a purchase of a financial instrument or an option, but rather as a purchase of the ability to ensure delivery of the underlying physical commodity.11

    7See id.

    8See id.

    9 One commenter contended that although this type of capacity contract may not impose a binding obligation on the parties to make and take delivery of a specific quantity of electricity, it does impose a binding obligation on the parties to make and take delivery of the capacity. See id. at 10.

    10See letter from IECA (June 22, 2015) at 10, and letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users (“CDEU”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 7-8.

    11See letter from IECA (June 22, 2015) at 10.

    A commenter explained how the payment structure under a capacity contract for resource adequacy is different from the payment structure under a financially-settled commodity option. According to this commenter, capacity contracts do not involve payment of a nominal option premium, followed by payment of the full market price of the electric power if and when the “option” is exercised.12 Instead, the initial payment under the capacity contract frequently recovers for the seller the entire fixed cost of producing, generating, supplying or transmitting the electric power.13

    12See id. at 11.

    13See id. Resource adequacy capacity is not tied to a specific power price and the purchaser of capacity does not have access to the energy tied to the capacity requirement. The capacity purchased is essentially conferred or assigned to the RTO or ISO, and these entities can call the capacity.

    2. Certain Peaking Supply Contracts—Natural Gas

    Commenters requested further guidance on whether certain natural gas contracts, which commenters labeled as “peaking supply contracts,” and which are entered into by electric utilities (with or without a minimum gas delivery requirement) should be regulated as swaps.14 The CFTC understands a peaking supply contract in this context to be a contract that enables an electric utility to purchase natural gas from another natural gas provider on those days when its local natural gas distribution companies (“LDCs”) curtail its natural gas transportation service. For example, one commenter, Linden, explained that it procures sufficient natural gas and gas transportation services to operate its cogeneration facility in the ordinary course through natural gas service agreements with its LDCs.15 Linden explained that its natural gas service agreements require Linden to take natural gas from the LDCs if they supply it. However, to ensure that the LDCs are able to meet their regulatory commitments to prioritize and serve residential demand for natural gas, the local board of public utilities (“BPU”) requires that the service agreements permit the LDCs to interrupt natural gas transportation service to Linden during certain specified conditions.16 Due to the LDCs' tariff-based commitments to serve residential natural gas demand, the BPU will not allow the LDCs to provide a “firmer” category of natural gas service to Linden.17 Because of the possibility of these interruptions of transportation service, Linden uses peaking supply contracts to ensure it has sufficient natural gas to operate its cogeneration facility during the interruptions.18

    14See letter from American Gas Association (“AGA”) (Dec. 22, 2014) at 9-11, letter from AGA (June 22, 2015) at 2-5; and letter from Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P. (“Linden”) (June 22, 2015) at 2-3. For purposes of this proposed guidance, the term electric utility means “all enterprises engaged in the production and/or distribution of electricity for use by the public, including investor-owned electric utility companies; cooperatively-owned electric utilities; government-owned electric utilities (municipal systems, federal agencies, state projects, and public power districts).” See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Glossary, available at http://ferc.gov/resources/glossary.asp.

    15 Linden is an exempt wholesale generator selling electric power at market-based rates under the jurisdiction of the FERC, and owns and operates a combined cycle natural gas-fired cogeneration facility located in Linden, New Jersey. The electricity produced from Linden's generator is sold, under a long-term power purchase agreement, to Consolidated Edison Company, which then uses the power to serve the electricity needs of consumers in New York City. Steam from Linden's operation is sold, also under a long-term contract, to the co-located Bayway Refinery, the largest refinery on the East Coast, for its industrial processes. See letter from Linden (June 22, 2015) at 1-3.

    16See id.

    17See id.

    18See id.

    Linden represented that, under its natural gas service agreements, the LDCs determine when the conditions for interrupting Linden's service are present, and Linden therefore has no control over such conditions. Thus, Linden does not have discretion as to whether and when an interruption of service as described above will occur.19

    19See id. at 3.

    Linden explained that, under the terms of its natural gas service agreements, Linden is required to take natural gas from the LDCs if they supply it. There is no ability for financial settlement under Linden's peaking supply contracts, and natural gas supplied under those peaking supply contracts cannot be re-sold by Linden.20 Linden represented that the price for natural gas in its peaking supply contracts is based on the market cost of fuel at specified delivery points, plus a specified adjustment depending on delivery point.21 Thus, since Linden could not use that natural gas for any purpose other than to fuel its facility when an interruption of service occurs, Linden represented that it is practically limited to exercising its right to take delivery under its peaking supply contracts only in the event of an interruption of service, and that it has no discretion as to whether and when it will exercise the right to take delivery under its natural gas peaking supply contracts.22

    20See letter from Linden (Dec. 22, 2014) at 6.

    21See letter from Linden (June 22, 2015) at 4, n. 12.

    22See id. at 3-4.

    3. Common Characteristics Described by Commenters

    As they have been described by commenters, the natural gas and electric power contracts discussed above are all entered into by commercial market participants, who contemplate physical settlement of the transactions, in response to regulatory requirements, the need to maintain reliable supplies, and practical considerations of storage or transport.23 In each case, the particular commodities covered by the contract are needed by at least one of the parties for the normal operation of its business, and the specific identity of the counterparty is an important consideration because of, for example, concerns about reliability or the practicability of supply.24

    23See letter from CDEU (Dec. 22, 2014) at 7, letter from EDF Trading North America, LLC (Dec. 22, 2014) at 13.

    24See letter from AGA (Dec. 22, 2014) at 9.

    B. Products Release Discussion of Commercial Contracts

    In the Products Release, the CFTC and the SEC (the “Commissions”) adopted an interpretation to assist commercial and non-profit entities in understanding whether certain agreements, contracts, or transactions that they enter into would or would not be regulated as swaps.25 To that end, the Products Release listed several specific types of commercial agreements, contracts, and transactions that involve customary business arrangements (whether or not involving a for-profit entity) that will not be considered swaps, including: Employment contracts; sales, servicing, or distribution arrangements; certain fixed or variable interest rate commercial loans or mortgages; and certain agreements, contracts, or transactions related to business combination transactions, real property, intellectual property, and warehouse lending arrangements.26 The Commissions stated their intent that this interpretation should “allow commercial and non-profit entities to continue to operate their businesses and operations without significant disruption and provide that the swap . . . definition [is] not read to include commercial and non-profit operations that historically have not been considered to involve swaps.” 27

    25See Products Release, 77 FR at 48246.

    26See id., 77 FR at 48247.

    27See id.

    The Commissions also explained that the list provided in the Products Release was not intended to be exhaustive and that there may be other, similar types of agreements, contracts, and transactions that also should not be considered to be swaps.28 The Commissions said that in determining whether similar types of agreements, contracts, and transactions entered into by commercial entities should not be considered swaps, they intend to consider the characteristics and factors that are common to the commercial transactions listed in the Products Release, which are:

    28See id.

    • They do not contain payment obligations, whether or not contingent, that are severable from the agreement, contract, or transaction;

    • They are not traded on an organized market or over-the-counter; and . . .

    • In the case of commercial arrangements, they are entered into:

    —By commercial or non-profit entities as principals (or by their agents) to serve an independent commercial, business, or non-profit purpose, and

    —Other than for speculative, hedging, or investment purposes.29

    29See id.

    The Commissions concluded that in determining whether an agreement, contract, or transaction not enumerated in the Products Release is a swap, the agreement, contract, or transaction will be evaluated based on its particular facts and circumstances,30 and the representative characteristics and factors set out in the Products Release “are not intended to be a bright-line test for determining whether a particular . . . commercial arrangement is a swap.” 31

    30See id., 77 FR at 48248.

    31See id., 77 FR at 48250.

    In the Products Release, the CFTC also addressed certain capacity contracts and peaking supply contracts in the context of the CFTC's interpretation of when an agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality would be considered a forward contract.32 The CFTC stated that depending on the relevant facts and circumstances, capacity contracts and peaking supply contracts may qualify as forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality if they met the elements of the CFTC's interpretation of that provision.33 This remains the case; the CFTC does not intend that the proposed guidance herein would affect the interpretation of when an agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality would be considered a forward contract.34

    32See id., 77 FR at 48238.

    33See id., 77 FR at 48240.

    34 The CFTC has clarified this interpretation. See Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality, 80 FR 28239 (May 18, 2015). In this clarification, the CFTC addressed certain retail electric market demand-response programs, under which electric utilities have the right to interrupt or curtail service to a customer to support system reliability. See id., 80 FR at 28242, citing letter from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Public Power Association, the Large Public Power Association, and the Transmission Access Policy Study Group (Oct. 12, 2012) at 9.

    The CFTC clarified that since a key function of an electricity system operator is to ensure grid reliability, demand response agreements, even if not specifically mandated by a system operator, may be properly characterized as the product of regulatory requirements within the meaning of the seventh element of the CFTC's interpretation regarding forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality. For the avoidance of doubt, the CFTC reiterates that the proposed guidance herein would not affect this interpretation.

    Also, the CFTC's interpretations regarding full requirements and output contracts, as provided in the Products Release, would be unaffected by the proposed guidance herein. See Products Release, 77 FR at 48239-40.

    Furthermore, the CFTC does not intend that the proposed guidance would supersede or modify a document issued by the CFTC's Office of General Counsel—“Response to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Certain Physical Commercial Agreements for the Supply and Consumption of Energy,” available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/leaselike_faq.pdf—which continues to be the position of the CFTC's Office of General Counsel on the issues discussed in that document.

    C. Proposed Guidance on Whether Certain Contracts Should Be Considered To Be Swaps

    In response to the comments, described above, which were provided by market participants regarding certain capacity contracts for electric power and certain peaking supply contracts for natural gas, the CFTC has considered the specific facts and circumstances of these contracts in light of the interpretation in the Products Release of when a contract would be considered not to be a swap because it is a customary commercial arrangement.

    The CFTC understands, based on the commenters' descriptions, that the contracts described in Part II.A. above are not traded on an organized market or over-the-counter, and do not have severable payment obligations. Thus, the CFTC preliminarily believes that the contracts described in Part II.A. are consistent with the first two elements of the interpretation in the Products Release.35

    35See Products Release, 77 FR at 48247 (the contracts “do not contain payment obligations, whether or not contingent, that are severable from the agreement, contract, or transaction; [and] . . . are not traded on an organized market or over-the-counter”).

    The CFTC has also considered the contracts described in Part II.A. in light of the statement in the Products Release that, in order not to be considered swaps, the contracts should be entered into “[b]y commercial or non-profit entities as principals (or by their agents) to serve an independent commercial, business, or non-profit purpose, and [o]ther than for speculative, hedging, or investment purposes.” 36 In view of all the facts and circumstances of the contracts described in Part II.A., the CFTC preliminarily believes that such contracts would satisfy this element of the Products Release, and therefore should be considered not to be swaps under the interpretation set forth in the Products Release because they are customary commercial arrangements of the type described in the Products Release.

    36See id.

    The CFTC notes that commenters have represented that the contracts described in Part II.A. are entered into in response to regulatory requirements, the need to maintain reliable supplies, and practical considerations of storage or transport which arise in the course of the normal operation of at least one party's business. In this respect, the CFTC preliminarily believes that the contracts described in Part II.A. are similar to certain contracts—namely, sales, servicing and distribution arrangements, and contracts for the purchase of equipment or inventory—listed in the Products Release as commercial contracts that will not be considered swaps.37 Also, in the Products Release the Commissions addressed commenters' assertion that all commercial merchandising transactions hedge an enterprise's commercial risks by stating that a commercial arrangement undertaken for hedging purposes may or may not be a swap depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the arrangement.38

    37See id.

    38See id., 77 FR at 48249.

    The CFTC observes that when an entity enters into a purchase contract, it is assured of a supply of the equipment or inventory it will need in the future. Similarly, a service contract assures the availability of a needed service in the future. The contracts described in Part II.A. are similar to the purchase and service contracts enumerated in the Products Release because they appear to satisfy the elements of commercial contracts, transactions or arrangements that are not considered swaps, including that they are entered into by commercial or non-profit entities to assure availability of a commodity, not to hedge against risks arising from a future change in price for the commodity or to serve a speculative or investment purpose.

    As stated in the Products Release, whether a particular commercial arrangement is a swap depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the arrangement.39 This proposed guidance would not apply to any agreement, contract or transaction other than those described in Part II.A., and would not preclude the CFTC from issuing further guidance considering other commodity contracts under the interpretation in the Products Release.

    39See id., 77 FR at 48248.

    III. Request for Comment

    The CFTC believes that it would benefit from public comment about its proposed guidance, and therefore requests public comment on all aspects of its proposed guidance set forth above, and on the following questions:

    1. Are there natural gas and electric power contracts that would not qualify as trade options within the scope of CFTC regulation 32.3 but which would be covered by the proposed guidance? If so, should the proposed guidance be limited so that it encompasses only contracts that do qualify as trade options? Why or why not?

    2. Does the proposed guidance provide sufficient clarity on whether the specific types of natural gas and electric power contracts in question should or should not be considered to be swaps? If not, how should the guidance be revised to provide more clarity?

    3. Are there other facts and circumstances that the CFTC should consider in determining whether the contracts described in Part II.A. are swaps? If so, what are these factors and how should they be considered?

    4. Are there contracts (other than those described in Part II.A.) that are entered into by participants in the electric power and natural gas markets and necessitated by, or closely tied to, compliance with regulatory obligations or frameworks that are similar to those described in Part II.A.?

    5. Are there other types of commodity contracts, outside of the electric power and natural gas markets, which are necessitated by, or closely tied to, compliance with regulatory obligations or frameworks that should be considered under the interpretation in the Products Release? If so, please describe these contracts and the regulatory obligations and frameworks to which they are closely tied.

    6. Are there public interest considerations regarding the natural gas and electric power contracts in question that should be reflected in the proposed guidance? If so, why and how?

    7. Does the proposed guidance provide sufficient clarity that it does not supersede or modify the CFTC OGC FAQ referenced in footnote 34? Is there any potential overlap between the proposed guidance and the CFTC OGC FAQ that should be further clarified? If so, what elements of the proposed guidance should be clarified to indicate that the proposed guidance does not supersede or modify the CFTC OGC FAQ?

    8. With respect to natural gas peaking contracts, are there natural gas providers other than LDCs, such as Intrastate and Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (as those terms are defined by the Energy Information Administration),40 which are subject to regulatory obligations to prioritize and serve residential demand for natural gas, such that the providers are obligated to curtail service to electric utilities under certain circumstances? If so, please explain.

    40See Distribution of Natural Gas: The Final Step in the Transmission Process, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, June 2008, available at https://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2008/ldc2008/ldc2008.pdf.

    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 4, 2016, by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Appendices to Certain Natural Gas and Electric Power Contracts—Commission Voting Summary and Chairman's Statement Appendix 1—Commodity Futures Trading Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    Appendix 2—Statement of CFTC Chairman Timothy G. Massad

    Today, the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), have jointly proposed guidance relating to the appropriate treatment of certain peaking supply and capacity contracts. We are issuing this guidance after considering the useful input we have received from market participants expressing concern about this issue. I support this proposal, as it will properly clarify the treatment of contracts used by many businesses with respect to the supply and delivery of electric power and natural gas.

    We have proposed that certain electric power and natural gas contracts should not be considered “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act. We have done so because we believe they are examples of customary commercial arrangements as described in the final rule defining the term “swap.”

    For example, these contracts are entered into to assure availability of a commodity, not to hedge against risks arising from a future change in price of that commodity or for speculative, or investment purposes. They are typically entered into in response to regulatory requirements, the need to maintain reliable energy supplies, and practical considerations of storage or transport. All of these factors are consistent with what has been set forth in previous commission guidance.

    Today's proposed guidance is an important complement to our final rule regarding Trade Options, which will reduce burdens on end-users and allow them to better address commercial risk. I thank my fellow Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo for joining me in unanimously approving this proposal as well as that final rule.

    [FR Doc. 2016-08076 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P;8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-135734-14] RIN 1545-BL00; RIN 1545-BN30 Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Application of Section 367 to a Section 351 Exchange Resulting From a Transaction Described in Section 304(a)(1); Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Guidance for Determining Stock Ownership AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Partial withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document withdraws portions of a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2009. The withdrawn portions relate to the application of section 367(b) to transactions described in section 304(a)(1). This document also withdraws portions of a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2014. The withdrawn portions relate to the identification of certain stock of a foreign corporation that is disregarded in calculating ownership of the foreign corporation for purposes of determining whether it is a surrogate foreign corporation for purposes of section 7874.

    DATES:

    As of April 8, 2016, portions of proposed rules (REG-147636-08 and REG-121534-12) published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2009 (74 FR 6840) and January 17, 2014 (79 FR 3145) are withdrawn.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shane M. McCarrick or David A. Levine, (202) 317-6937.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 11, 2009, the Department of Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published in the Federal Register proposed regulations (REG-147636-08, 74 FR 6840), including § 1.367(b)-4(e), (f), and (g), which provide guidance on the application of section 367(b) to transactions described in section 304(a)(1). The regulations were proposed by cross-reference to temporary regulations in § 1.367(b)-4T in the same issue of the Federal Register (T.D. 9444, 74 FR 6824). This document withdraws these proposed regulations because the rules in the proposed regulations do not reflect current law. See Notice 2012-15, 2012-9 I.R.B. 424 (revising the approach under the proposed regulations regarding the interaction of sections 367 and 304 and providing that section 367(a) and (b) apply fully to certain transctions described in section 304(a)(1)). In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing additional temporary regulations in § 1.367(b)-4T(e), (f), and (g), as well as (h), that, in the case of certain exchanges, generally require an inclusion of amounts in income as a deemed dividend or recognition of realized gain that is not otherwise recognized, or both. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register that proposes new rules in § 1.367(b)-4T by cross-reference to the temporary regulations.

    On January 17, 2014, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register proposed regulations (REG-121534-12, 79 FR 3145), including in § 1.7874-4, that provide that certain stock of a foreign corporation is disregarded in calculating ownership of the foreign corporation for purposes of determining whether it is a surrogate foreign corporation for purposes of section 7874. The regulations were proposed by cross-reference to temporary regulations in § 1.7874-4T in the same issue of the Federal Register (T.D. 9654, 79 FR 3094). In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the Treasury Department and the IRS are amending certain of the temporary regulations in § 1.7874-4T. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register that proposes rules in § 1.7874-4 by cross-reference to the amended temporary regulations. This document withdraws the previously proposed regulations that are replaced by the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Partial Withdrawal of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, § 1.367(b)-4(e), (f), and (g) of the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-147636-08) published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2009 (74 FR 6840) are withdrawn. Also, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, § 1.7874-4(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii)(B), (c)(2), (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (h), (i)(6), (i)(7)(iii)(C), (i)(7)(iv), (j)(7), (j)(8), and (k)(1), as well as paragraph (ii) of Example 1, paragraph (ii) of Example 2, and Example 3 through Example 8 of § 1.7874-4(j), of the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-121534-12) published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2014 (79 FR 3145) are withdrawn.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07295 Filed 4-4-16; 5:00 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-135734-14] RIN 1545-BM45 Inversions and Related Transactions AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS are issuing temporary regulations that address transactions that are structured to avoid the purposes of sections 7874 and 367 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and certain post-inversion tax avoidance transactions in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register. The temporary regulations affect certain domestic corporations and domestic partnerships whose assets are directly or indirectly acquired by a foreign corporation and certain persons related to such domestic corporations and domestic partnerships. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-135734-14), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20224. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-135734-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-135734-14).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations under sections 304, 367, and 7874, Shane M. McCarrick or David A. Levine, (202) 317-6937; concerning the proposed regulations under sections 956 and 7701(l), Rose E. Jenkins, (202) 317-6934 (not toll-free numbers); concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-5177 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register contain regulations under sections 304, 367, 954, 956, 7701(l), and 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that address transactions that are structured to avoid the purposes of sections 7874 and 367 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and certain post-inversion tax avoidance transactions. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations herein. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and the corresponding proposed regulations.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. Treasury and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits electronic or written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Rose E. Jenkins, David A. Levine, and Shane M. McCarrick of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.304-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 304(b)(5)(C).

    Section 1.367(b)-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 367(a), 367(b), and 954(c)(6)(A).

    Section 1.956-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 956(d) and 956(e).

    Section 1.7701(l)-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7701(l) and 954(c)(6)(A).

    Section 1.7874-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and 7874(g).

    Section 1.7874-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and 7874(g).

    Section 1.7874-6 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and 7874(g).

    Section 1.7874-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and 7874(g).

    Section 1.7874-8 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and 7874(g).

    Section 1.7874-9 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and 7874(g).

    Section 1.7874-10 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(4) and 7874(g).

    Section 1.7874-11 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(g).

    Section 1.7874-12 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(g).

    Par. 2. Section 1.304-7 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.304-7 Certain acquisitions by foreign acquiring corporations.

    [The text of proposed § 1.304-7 is the same as the text of § 1.304-7T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 3. Section 1.367(a)-3 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(C) and (c)(11)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 1.367(a)-3 Treatment of transfers of stock or securities to foreign corporations.

    (c) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (C) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.367(a)-3(c)(3)(iii)(C) is the same as the text of § 1.367(a)-3T(c)(3)(iii)(C) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (11) * * *

    (ii) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.367(a)-3(c)(11)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.367(a)-3T(c)(11)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 4. Section 1.367(b)-4 is amended by revising paragraph (a), paragraph (b) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(C), (d)(1), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:
    § 1.367(b)-4 Acquisition of foreign corporate stock or assets by a foreign corporation in certain nonrecognition transactions.

    (a) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.367(b)-4(a) is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)-4T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (b) [The text of the proposed amendment to the introductory text to § 1.367(b)-4(b) is the same as the introductory text of § 1.367(b)-4T(b) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (1) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.367(b)-4(b)(1)(i)(C) is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)-4T(b)(1)(i)(C) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (d) * * *

    (1) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.367(b)-4(d)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)-4T(d)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (e) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.367(b)-4(e) is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)-4T(e) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (f) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.367(b)-4(f) is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)-4T(f) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (g) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.367(b)-4(g) is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)-4T(g) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (h) [The text of proposed § 1.367(b)-4(h) is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)-4T(h) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 5. Section 1.956-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (c)(5), (d)(2), and (i) to read as follows:
    § 1.956-2 Definition of United States property.

    (a) * * *

    (4) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-2(a)(4) is the same as the text of § 1.956-2T(a)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (c) * * *

    (5) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-2(c)(5) is the same as the text of § 1.956-2T(c)(5) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (d) * * *

    (2) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-2(d)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.956-2T(d)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (i) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-2(i) is the same as the text of § 1.956-2T(i) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 6. Section 1.7701(l)-4 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7701(l)-4 Rules regarding inversion transactions.

    [The text of proposed § 1.7701(l)-4 is the same as the text of § 1.7701(l)-4T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 7. Section 1.7874-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii), (f), and (h)(2) to read as follows.
    § 1.7874-1 Disregard of affiliate-owned stock.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-1(c)(2)(iii) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-1T(c)(2)(iii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (f) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-1(f) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-1T(f) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (h) * * *

    (2) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-1(h)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-1T(h)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 8. Section 1.7874-2 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), (b)(10), (b)(11), (b)(12), (b)(13), (c)(2), and (c)(4). 2. Revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text. 3. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(iv). 4. Revising Example 21 of paragraph (k)(2). 5. Revising paragraph (l)(2).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1.7874-2 Surrogate foreign corporation.

    (a) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(a) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (b) * * *

    (7) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(b)(7) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(b)(7) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (8) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(b)(8) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(b)(8) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (9) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(b)(9) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(b)(9) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (10) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(b)(10) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(b)(10) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (11) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(b)(11) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(b)(11) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (12) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(b)(12) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(b)(12) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (13) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(b)(13) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(b)(13) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (c) * * *

    (2) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(c)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(c)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (4) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(c)(4) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(c)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (f) * * *

    (1) [The proposed amendment to the introductory text of § 1.7874-2(f)(1) is the same as the introductory text of § 1.7874-2T(f)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (iv) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(f)(1)(iv) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(f)(1)(iv) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (k) * * *

    (2) * * *

    Example 21. [The text of the proposed amendment to Example 21 of § 1.7874-2(k)(2) is the same as the text of Example 21 of § 1.7874-2T(k)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (l) * * *

    (2) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-2(l)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-2T(l)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 9. Section 1.7874-3 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (d)(10), and (f)(2) to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-3 Substantial business activities.

    (b) * * *

    (4) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-3(b)(4) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-3T(b)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (d) * * *

    (10) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-3(d)(10) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-3T(d)(10) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (f) * * *

    (2) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.7874-3(f)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-3T(f)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 10. Section 1.7874-4 is added to read as follows.
    § 1.7874-4 Disregard of certain stock related to the acquisition.

    (a) through (c)(1) introductory text [Reserved].

    (i) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(c)(1)(i) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(c)(1)(i) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (ii) [Reserved].

    (B) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(c)(1)(ii)(B) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(c)(1)(ii)(B) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (2) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(c)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(c)(2) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (d) introductory text through (d)(1) introductory text [Reserved].

    (i) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(d)(1)(i) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(d)(1)(i) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (ii) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(d)(1)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(d)(1)(ii) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (d)(2) through (g) [Reserved].

    (h) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(h) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(h) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (i) introductory text through (i)(5) [Reserved].

    (6) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(i)(6) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(i)(6) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (i)(7) introductory text through (i)(7)(iii) introductory text [Reserved].

    (C) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(i)(7)(iii)(C) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(i)(7)(iii)(C) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (iv) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(i)(7)(iv) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(i)(7)(iv) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (j) introductory text through (j)(6) [Reserved].

    (7) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(j)(7) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(j)(7) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (8) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(j)(8) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(j)(8) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (9) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(j)(9) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(j)(9) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (10) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(j)(10) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(j)(10) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (11) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(j)(11) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(j)(11) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 1 introductory text through Example 1 paragraph (i) [Reserved].

    (ii) [The text of proposed paragraph (ii) of Example 1 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of paragraph (ii) of Example 1 of § 1.7874-4T(j) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 2 introductory text through Example 2 paragraph (i) [Reserved].

    (ii) [The text of proposed paragraph (ii) of Example 2 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of paragraph (ii) of Example 2 of § 1.7874-4T(j) as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 3. [The text of proposed Example 3 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of Example 3 of § 1.7874-4T(j) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 4. [The text of proposed Example 4 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of Example 4 of § 1.7874-4T(j) as redesignated and revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 5. [The text of proposed Example 5 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of Example 5 of § 1.7874-4T(j) as redesignated and revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 6. [The text of proposed Example 6 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of Example 6 of § 1.7874-4T(j) as redesignated and revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 7. [The text of proposed Example 7 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of Example 7 of § 1.7874-4T(j) as redesignated and revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 8. [The text of proposed Example 8 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of Example 8 of § 1.7874-4T(j) as redesignated and revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Example 9. [The text of proposed Example 9 of § 1.7874-4(j) is the same as the text of Example 9 of § 1.7874-4T(j) as redesignated and revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (k) introductory text [Reserved].

    (1) [The text of proposed § 1.7874-4(k)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.7874-4T(k)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (k)(2) through (k)(3) [Reserved].

    Par. 11. Section 1.7874-6 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-6 Stock transferred by members of the EAG.

    [The text of proposed § 1.7874-6 is the same as the text of § 1.7874-6T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 12. Section 1.7874-7 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-7 Disregard of certain stock attributable to passive assets.

    [The text of proposed § 1.7874-7 is the same as the text of § 1.7874-7T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 13. Section 1.7874-8 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-8 Disregard of certain stock attributable to multiple domestic entity acquisitions.

    [The text of proposed § 1.7874-8 is the same as the text of § 1.7874-8T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 14. Section 1.7874-9 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-9 Disregard of certain stock in third-country transactions.

    [The text of proposed § 1.7874-9 is the same as the text of § 1.7874-9T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 15. Section 1.7874-10 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-10 Disregard of certain distributions.

    [The text of proposed § 1.7874-10 is the same as the text of § 1.7874-10T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 16. Section 1.7874-11 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-11 Rules regarding inversion gain.

    [The text of proposed § 1.7874-11 is the same as the text of § 1.7874-11T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 17. Section 1.7874-12 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-12 Definitions.

    [The text of proposed § 1.7874-12 is the same as the text of § 1.7874-12T published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07299 Filed 4-4-16; 5:00 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 943 [SATS No. TX-067-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2016-0001; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 167S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 16XS501520] Texas Regulatory Program AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Texas regulatory program (Texas program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Texas proposes revisions to its regulations regarding annual permit fees. Texas intends to revise its program to improve operational efficiency.

    This document gives the times and locations that the Texas program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.

    DATES:

    We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., c.t., May 9, 2016. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on May 3, 2016. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., c.t. on April 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. TX-067-FOR, by any of the following methods:

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128-4629.

    Fax: (918) 581-6419.

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to review copies of the Texas program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, you must go to the address listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSMRE's Tulsa Field Office or going to www.regulations.gov.

    Director: Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128-4629, Telephone: (918) 581-6430.

    In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, Railroad Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Capitol Station, P.O. Box 12967, Austin, Texas 78711-2967, Telephone: (512) 463-6900.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Director, Tulsa Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. Email: Debbie Dale at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background on the Texas Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Texas Program

    Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act . . .; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Texas program effective February 16, 1980. You can find background information on the Texas program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Texas program in the February 27, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 12998). You can also find later actions concerning the Texas program and program amendments at 30 CFR 943.10, 943.15, and 943.16.

    II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated November 17, 2015 (Administrative Record No. TX-705), Texas sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) at its own initiative. Below is a summary of the changes proposed by Texas. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES.

    Texas proposes to revise its regulation at 16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) section 12.108(b) regarding annual permit fees by:

    (1) Removing paragraph (b)(1), regarding fees for each acre of land within the permit area on which coal or lignite was actually removed during the calendar year;

    (2) Increasing the amount of the fee, from $12.00 to $13.05, for each acre of land within a permit area covered by a reclamation bond on December 31st of the year; and

    (3) Increasing the amount of the fee, from $6,540 to $6,600, for each permit in effect on December 31st of the year.

    Texas fully funds its share of costs to regulate the coal mining industry with fees paid by the coal industry. Texas charges three fees to meet these costs, a permit application fee and two annual fees as mentioned above. The proposed fee revisions are intended to provide adequate funding to pay the State's cost of operating its regulatory program, and provide incentives for industry to accomplish reclamation and achieve bond release as quickly as possible.

    III. Public Comment Procedures

    Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.

    Electronic or Written Comments

    If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.

    We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or sent to an address other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Public Hearing

    If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., c.t. on April 25, 2016. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.

    To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

    Public Meeting

    If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

    IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

    Other Laws and Executive Orders Affecting Rulemaking

    When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment. We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: February 11, 2016. Len Meier, Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08168 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1079] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend and update its annual and recurring safety zones that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River area of responsibility (AOR). This document informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through establishing a safety zone. This document also proposes to update the current list of recurring safety zones with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. Additionally, this one proposed rulemaking project reduces administrative costs involved in producing separate proposed rules for each individual recurring safety zone and serves to provide notice of the known recurring safety zones throughout the year. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1079 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations AOR Area of Responsibility CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River is proposing to amend and update its current list of recurring safety zones.

    The current list of annual and recurring safety zones occurring in Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR is published under 33 CFR part 165.801, Table 2. This current list was established through a rulemaking process providing for comment and public participation. No adverse comments were received, resulting in the final rulemaking 80 FR 49911, which was published August 18, 2015. The final rulemaking amended 33 CFR 165.801 to establish the current list of recurring safety zones.

    This rulemaking proposes to add to, amend, and update the list of annually recurring safety zones under Table 2 in 33 CFR 165.801 for annual and recurring safety zones in the COTP Upper Mississippi zone.

    The Coast Guard is amending and updating the annual and recurring safety zone regulations under 33 CFR part 165 to include the most up to date list of annual and recurring safety zones for events held on or around navigable waters within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. These events include fireworks displays, air shows, festival events, and other recurring marine related safety needs. The current list under 33 CFR 165.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing safety zones, updating to include new safety zones expected to recur annually, and to remove safety zones that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new safety zone, amendment, or removal of an existing safety zones creates unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This single proposed rulemaking will considerably reduce administrative overhead and provide the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming annual and recurring safety zones. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1221.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    33 CFR part 165 contains regulations establishing limited access areas on U.S. navigable waters. Section 165.801 lists the established recurring safety zones taking place in the Eighth Coast Guard District separated into tables for each of the seven sectors within the Eighth District. Table 2 lists the recurring safety zones for Sector Upper Mississippi River. This section, and table, requires amendment from time to time to properly reflect the recurring safety zones in Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. This proposed rule amends and updates Section 165.801 replacing the current Table 2 for Sector Upper Mississippi River.

    Additionally, this proposed rule adds 3 new, modifies 7, and removes 14 recurring safety zones as listed below.

    This proposed rule adds 3 new safety zones to Table 2 in § 165.801 as follows:

    Date Sponsor/name Sector Upper
  • Mississippi River
  • location
  • Safety zone
    1 day—Weekend before Thanksgiving Main Street Parkway Association/Parkville Christmas on the River Parkville, MO Missouri River mile marker 377.5 to 378.0. 2 days—A weekend in September St. Louis Drag Boat Association/New Athens Drag Boat Race New Athens, IL Kaskaskia River mile marker 119.7 to 120.3. 1 day—4th of July weekend City of Marquette/Marquette Independence Day Celebration Marquette, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 634.2 to 635.7.

    This proposed rule modifies the following 7 safety zones currently listed in Table 2 in § 165.801 as follows:

    Date Sponsor/name Sector Upper
  • Mississippi River
  • location
  • Safety zone
    3. 1 day—2nd weekend of June City of Champlin/Father Hennepin Fireworks Display Champlin, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 870.5 to 872.0. 6. 1 day—1st weekend of September Tan-Tar-A Resort/Tan-Tar-A Labor Day Fireworks Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 025.8 to 026.2. 12. 1 day—4th of July weekend Guttenberg Development and Tourism/Stars and Stripes River Day Guttenberg, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 615.0 to 615.5. 34. 1 day—Sunday of Father's Day weekend Winona Steamboat Days/Winona Steamboat Days Fireworks Winona, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 725.4 to 725.7. 35. 3 days—4th of July weekend Fair of St. Louis/Fair St. Louis St. Louis, MO Upper Mississippi River mile marker 179.2 to 180.0. 45. 2 days—3rd weekend of September Riverside Chamber of Commerce/Riverfest Riverside, MO Missouri River mile marker 371.8 to 372.2 48. 2 days—Weekend that precedes Labor Day Weekend Lake of the Ozarks Shootout, Inc./Lake of the Ozarks Shootout Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 032.5 to 034.5.

    This proposed rule removes the following 14 safety zones from the existing Table 2 in § 165.801:

    Date Sponsor/name Sector Upper
  • Mississippi River
  • location
  • Safety zone
    14. 1 day—4th of July weekend Hannibal Jaycees/National Tom Sawyer Days Hannibal, MO Upper Mississippi River mile marker 308.0 to 309.0. 15. 1 day—4th of July weekend Fort Madison Partner/Fort Madison Fourth of July Fireworks Fort Madison, WI Upper Mississippi River mile marker 383.0 to 384.0. 16. 5 days—Last week in June/1st week in July Taste of Minnesota/Taste of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 839.8 to 840.2. 17. 1 day—4th of July weekend John E. Curran/John E. Curran Fireworks Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 008.8 to 009.2. 25. 1 day—4th of July weekend Chillicothe Police Department/Chillicothe 4th of July Chillicothe, IL Illinois River mile marker 179.1 to 180.0. 26. 2 days—2nd weekend in July Clinton Riverboat Day/Clinton Riverboat Days Clinton, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 518.0 to 519.0. 27. 1 day—4th of July weekend Harrah's Casino and Hotel/Harrah's Fireworks Extravaganza Omaha, NE Missouri River mile marker 615.0 to 615.6. 36. Friday and Saturday, every weekend from the 2nd weekend of July until the 2nd weekend in August Fair of St. Louis/Live on the Levee St. Louis, MO Upper Mississippi River mile marker 179.2 to 180.0. 47. 1 day—3rd week in July Rivercade Association/Sioux City Rivercade North Sioux City, SD Missouri River mile marker 732.2 to 732.6. 49. 1 day—1st weekend of September Camden on the Lake Labor Day Fireworks/Camden on the Lake Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 007.1 to 006.9. 51. 1 day—1st weekend of August New Piasa Chautauqua/New Piasa Chautauqua Elsah, IL Upper Mississippi River mile marker 215.6 to 216. 52. 1 day—last weekend in May Horny Toad, Inc./Horny Toad Fireworks Display Lake of the Ozarks Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 006.8 to 007.2. 53. 1 day—4th of July weekend Omaha Royals/Omaha World Herald Fireworks Omaha, NE Missouri River mile marker 612.1 to 613.9. 54. 1 day—Last weekend in July Great River Days, Inc./Great River Days Muscatine, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 455.0 to 456.0.

    The effect of this proposed rule will be to restrict general navigation in the safety zone during the event. Vessels will experience limited access on the waterway when the safety zones are in effect. Requests to transit into, through, or within a safety zone will be considered and will be allowed only when deemed safe by the COTP Upper Mississippi River, or designated representative.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal, and therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule establishes safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR part 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. The effect of this proposed rulemaking will not be significant because these safety zones are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the Federal Register, and/or Notices of Enforcement and thus will be able to plan operations around the safety zones in advance. Deviation from the safety zones established through this proposed rulemaking may be requested from the COTP Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves rules establishes safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Amend § 165.801(d) by revising Table 2 to read as follows:
    § 165.801 Annual fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth Coast Guard District requiring safety zones. Table 2 of § 165.801—Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Date Sponsor/name Sector Upper
  • Mississippi River
  • location
  • Safety zone
    1. 1 day—4th weekend of July Marketing Minneapolis LLC/Target Aquatennial Fireworks Minneapolis, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 853.2 to 854.2. 2. 1 day—4th of July weekend Radio Dubuque/Radio Dubuque Fireworks and Air show Dubuque, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 581.0 to 583.0. 3. 1 day—2nd weekend of June City of Champlin/Father Hennepin Fireworks Display Champlin, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 870.5 to 872.0. 4. 1 day—4th of July weekend Downtown Main Street/Mississippi Alumination Red Wing, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 790.8 to 791.2. 5. 1 day—4th of July weekend Tan-Tar-A Resort/Tan-Tar-A 4th of July Fireworks Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 025.8 to 026.2. 6. 1 day—1st weekend of September Tan-Tar-A Resort/Tan-Tar-A Labor Day Fireworks Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 025.8 to 026.2. 7. 1 day—Last Sunday in May Tan-Tar-A Resort/Tan-Tar-A Memorial Day fireworks Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 025.8 to 026.2. 8. 1 day—4th of July weekend Lake City Chamber of Commerce/Lake City 4th of July Fireworks Lake City, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 772.4 to 772.8. 9. 1 day—4th of July weekend Greater Muscatine Chamber of Commerce/Muscatine 4th of July Muscatine, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 455.0 to 456.0. 10. 1 day—Last weekend in June/First weekend in July Friends of the River Kansas City/KC Riverfest Kansas City, KS Missouri River mile marker 364.8 to 365.2. 11. 1 day—4th of July weekend Louisiana Chamber of Commerce/Louisiana July 4th Fireworks Louisiana, MO Upper Mississippi River mile marker 282.0 to 283.0. 12. 1 day—4th of July weekend Guttenberg Development and Tourism/Stars and Stripes River Day Guttenberg, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 615.0 to 615.5. 13. 4 days—1st or 2nd week of July Riverfest, Inc./La Crosse Riverfest La Crosse, WI Upper Mississippi River mile marker 697.5 to 698.5 (Wisconsin). 14. 1 day—2nd weekend in July Prairie du Chien Area Chamber of Commerce/Prairie du Chien Area Chamber Fireworks Prairie du Chien, WI Upper Mississippi River mile marker 633.8 to 634.2. 15. 1 day—4th of July weekend JMP Radio/Red White and Boom Peoria Peoria, IL Illinois River mile marker 162.5 to 162.1. 16. 1 day—Last weekend in June/First weekend in July Hudson Boosters/Hudson Booster Days Hudson, WI St. Croix River mile marker 016.8 to 017.2. 17. 2 days—4th of July weekend City of St. Charles/St. Charles Riverfest St. Charles, MO Missouri River mile marker 028.2 to 028.8. 18. 1 day—4th of July weekend Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board/Red, White, and Boom Minneapolis Minneapolis, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 853.5 to 854.5. 19. 1 day—4th of July weekend Davenport One Chamber/Red White and Boom Davenport, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 482.0 to 482.7. 20. 2 days—3rd weekend of July Amelia Earhart Festival Committee/Amelia Earhart Festival Kansas City, KS Missouri River mile marker 422.0 to 424.5. 21. 1 day—4th of July weekend Alton Exposition Commission/Mississippi Fireworks Festival Alton, IL Upper Mississippi River mile marker 202.5 to 203.0. 22. 1 day—3rd Sunday in June Burlington Steamboat Days/Burlington Steamboat Days Burlington, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 403.5 to 404.5. 23. 1 day—Last Sunday in May Lodge of the Four Seasons/Lodge of the Four Seasons Memorial Day Fireworks Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 013.8 to 014.2. 24. 1 day—First weekend of September Lodge of the Four Seasons/Labor Day Fireworks Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 013.8 to 014.2. 25. 1 day—4th of July weekend Lodge of the Four Seasons/Lodge of the Four Seasons 4th of July Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 013.8 to 014.2. 26. 2 days—3rd weekend in July Hasting Riverboat Days/Rivertown Days Hasting, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 813.7 to 815.2. 27. 1 day—Sunday of Father's Day weekend Winona Steamboat Days/Winona Steamboat Days Fireworks Winona, MN Upper Mississippi River mile marker 725.4 to 725.7. 28. 3 days—4th of July weekend Fair of St. Louis/Fair St. Louis St. Louis, MO Upper Mississippi River mile marker 179.2 to 180.0. 29. 1 day—Last weekend in June/First weekend in July Bellevue Heritage Days/Bellevue Heritage Days Bellevue, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 556.0 to 556.5. 30. 1 day—4th of July weekend Main Street Parkway Association/Parkville 4th of July Fireworks Parkville, MO Missouri River mile marker 378.0 to 377.5. 31. 1 day—4th of July weekend Hermann Chamber of Commerce/Hermann 4th of July Hermann, MO Missouri River mile marker 099.0 to 098.0 (Missouri). 32. 1 day—4th of July weekend Grafton Chamber of Commerce/Grafton Chamber 4th of July Fireworks Grafton, IL Illinois River mile marker 001.5 to 000.5 (Illinois). 33. 1 day—4th of July weekend Salute to America Foundation, Inc./Salute to America Jefferson City, MO Missouri River mile marker 143.5 to 143.0 (Missouri). 34. 1 day—4th of July weekend McGregor/Marquette Chamber Commerce/Independence Day Celebration McGregor, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 635.7 to 634.2. 35. 2 days—2nd weekend in August Tug Committee/Great River Tug Port Byron, IL Upper Mississippi River mile marker 497.2 to 497.6 (Illinois). 36. 1 day—4th of July weekend City of Stillwater/St. Croix Events/Stillwater 4th of July Stillwater, MN St. Croix River mile marker 022.9 to 023.5 (Minnesota). 37. 2 days—3rd weekend of September Riverside Chamber of Commerce/Riverfest Riverside, MO Missouri River mile marker 371.8 to 372.2. 38. 4 days—3rd week of July St. Croix Events/Lumberjack Days Stillwater, MN St. Croix River mile marker 022.9 to 023.5 (Minnesota). 39. 2 days—Weekend that precedes Labor Day Weekend Lake of the Ozarks Shootout, Inc./Lake of the Ozarks Shootout Lake of the Ozarks, MO Lake of the Ozarks mile marker 032.5 to 034.5. 40. 2 days—1st weekend of September City of Keithsburg/Keithsburg Fireworks Display Keithsburg, IL Upper Mississippi River mile marker 427.5 to 427.3. 41. 1 day—4th of July weekend City of East Moline/City of East Moline Fireworks East Moline, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 490.2 to 489.8. 42. 2nd Weekend in August Lansing Lion's Club/Lansing Fish Days Fireworks Lansing, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 662.8-663.9. 43. 3rd Weekend in August River Action/Floatzilla Rock Island, Illinois Upper Mississippi River mile marker 479.0-486.0. 44. 1 day—Weekend before Thanksgiving Main Street Parkway Association/Parkville Christmas on the River Parkville, MO Missouri River mile marker 377.5 to 378.0. 45. 2 days—A weekend in September St. Louis Drag Boat Association/New Athens Drag Boat Race New Athens, IL Kaskaskia River mile marker 119.7 to 120.3. 46. 1 day—4th of July weekend City of Marquette/Marquette Independence Day Celebration Marquette, IA Upper Mississippi River mile marker 634.2 to 635.7.
    Dated: April 4, 2016. M. L. Malloy, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07997 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0005; FRL-9944-72-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Measurement and Reporting of Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This SIP revision amends two regulations to clarify testing and sampling methods for stationary sources of particulate matter (PM) and add the requirement to measure and report filterable and condensable PM. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0005 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maria A. Pino, (215) 814-2181, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    PM, also known as particle pollution, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller, because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.

    EPA established the first national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for coarse particles (PM10), which are particles less than 10 microns in diameter, on July 1, 1987. 52 FR 24634. The rules established primary (health based) and secondary (welfare based) PM10 standards for short term (24-hour) and long term (annual) exposures to PM. The 24-hour standards were set at 150 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over a 3-year period. The annual standards were set at 50 µg/m3, based on a three-year average annual arithmetic mean. On July 18, 1997, EPA established the first NAAQS for particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter, known as fine particulate (PM2.5). 62 FR 38652. EPA set an annual primary and secondary standards at 15 µg/m3, based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and 24-hour primary and secondary standards at 65 µg/m3, based on a three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA revised the PM2.5 NAAQS on October 17, 2006, lowering the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3. 71 FR 61144. In that rule, EPA retained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and revoked the annual PM10 standard. On December 14, 2012, EPA once again revised the PM2.5 NAAQS, lowering the level of the health based primary annual standard from 15 to 12 µg/m3, while retaining the welfare based secondary annual standard at 15 µg/m3. That rule also retained the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 µg/m3.

    On December 1, 2010, EPA revised two test methods for measuring PM emissions from stationary sources. 75 FR 80118. One of the revised methods, called Method 201A, provides the capability to measure the mass of filterable PM2.5. The second revised method, called Method 202, makes measurement of condensable PM more accurate. Condensable PM forms from condensing gases or vapors. It is a common component of both PM10 and PM2.5. The combination of Methods 201A and 202 helps EPA and states to develop more accurate primary PM emissions inventories, determine whether stationary sources are major sources of PM10 or PM2.5 emissions for the New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program or the Title V Permit program, determine more accurately the effectiveness of control devices for PM10 or PM2.5, develop regulatory limits with more appropriate test methods, and determine compliance with regulatory limits with greater accuracy. See 40 CFR part 51 appendix M and 75 FR 80118 (December 21, 2010).

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On June 25, 2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted a formal SIP revision that amends chapters 121 and 139 of title 25, Environmental Protection, of the Pennsylvania Code (25 Pa. Code). Methods 201A and 202 are incorporated by reference in Pennsylvania's Source Testing Manual, which is incorporated by reference in 25 Pa. Code, chapter 139, Sampling and Testing. Amendments to chapter 121, in section 121.1, add definitions for the terms “condensable particulate matter” and “filterable particulate matter.” The amendments to 25 Pa. Code section 139.12 explain the process for determining compliance with filterable and condensable PM emission limitations, and explains the compliance demonstration process. Under 25 Pa. Code section 139.12(b), the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to PM emission limitations or to NSR/PSD applicability determinations is required to demonstrate compliance for filterable and condensable PM emissions. The amendment to 25 Pa. Code section 139.53 specifies to whom monitoring reports must be submitted.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the June 25, 2015 Pennsylvania SIP revision, which amends specific provisions within chapters 121 and 139 of 25 Pa. Code. The amendments clarify testing and sampling methods and reporting requirements for stationary sources of PM and add the requirement to measure and report filterable and condensable PM. This revision meets requirements in section 110 of the CAA and strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the revised Pennsylvania regulations, published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol. 44 No. 15, April 12, 2014, and effective on April 12, 2014. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

    • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

    In addition, this rulemaking action, proposing to approve amendments to Pennsylvania's regulations regarding testing and sampling methods for stationary sources of PM, including filterable and condensable PM, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the Commonwealth, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 24, 2016 Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08159 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0072; FRL-9944-53-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Prong 4-2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) visibility transport (prong 4) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2012 annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP.” Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 portions of North Carolina's November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; August 23, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure SIP submission; March 18, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and December 4, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0072 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.

    Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 portions of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as discussed in section IV of this document. All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register documents cited in the following subsections.

    a. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. North Carolina submitted its infrastructure SIP submission on November 2, 2012, for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.

    b. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. North Carolina submitted its infrastructure SIP submission on August 23, 2013, for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.

    c. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. North Carolina submitted its infrastructure SIP submission on March 18, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.

    d. 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. North Carolina submitted its infrastructure SIP submission on December 4, 2015, for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.

    II. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “each such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.1 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    1 For example: section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.

    2See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    3 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.4 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.5

    4See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    5 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007 submittal.

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.6

    6 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.7 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).8 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.9 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    7 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    8 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    9 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Circuit 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; 10 (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.11 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    10 Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,” 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section 304.

    11 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.12 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.13 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.14

    12 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

    13 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    14See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    III. What are the Prong 4 requirements?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's SIP to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources to impacts on visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.

    The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways in which a state's infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. The first way is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an EPA-approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.

    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of how North Carolina addressed Prong 4?

    North Carolina's November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; August 23, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; March 18, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 4, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission cite to the State's regional haze SIP as satisfying prong 4 requirements. However, as explained below, EPA has not yet fully approved North Carolina's regional haze SIP because the SIP relies on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy the nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for the CAIR-subject electric generating units (EGUs) in the State and the requirement for a long-term strategy (LTS) sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.15

    15 CAIR, promulgated in 2005, required 27 states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NOX and SO2 that significantly contribute to, or interfere with maintenance of, the 1997 NAAQS for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR imposed specified emissions reduction requirements on each affected State, and established an EPA-administered cap and trade program for EGUs in which States could join as a means to meet these requirements.

    EPA demonstrated that CAIR achieved greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than BART for NOX and SO2 at BART-eligible EGUs in CAIR affected states, and revised the regional haze rule (RHR) to provide that states participating in CAIR's cap-and-trade program need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). As a result, a number of states in the CAIR region designed their regional haze SIPs to rely on CAIR as an alternative to NOX and SO2 BART for CAIR-subject EGUs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a LTS for achieving their reasonable progress goals.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,16 but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.17 On August 8, 2011, acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and thus to address the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.18 See 76 FR 48208.

    16North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Circuit 2008).

    17North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Circuit 2008).

    18 Although a number of parties challenged the legality of CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially vacated and remanded CSAPR to EPA in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Circuit 2012), the United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects and CSAPR is now in effect. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Circuit 2015).

    Due to CAIR's status as a temporary measure following the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIP revisions to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of North Carolina's regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless North Carolina submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency. See 77 FR 33642. EPA finalized a limited approval of North Carolina's regional haze SIP on June 27, 2012, as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. See 77 FR 38185.

    On October 31, 2014, North Carolina submitted a regional haze SIP revision to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on a BART Alternative to satisfy NOX and SO2 BART requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. Concurrent with this proposed prong 4 action, EPA is proposing to approve the October 31, 2014, SIP revision and convert North Carolina's regional haze SIP from a limited approval to a full approval because EPA believes that final approval of this SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 portions of North Carolina's November 2, 2012, August 23, 2013, 2010, March 18, 2014, and December 4, 2015, 2012 SIP submissions. EPA will not finalize this proposed prong 4 action unless it approves North Carolina's October 31, 2014, SIP revision and converts the State's regional haze SIP from a limited approval to a full approval.

    V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 portions of North Carolina's November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; August 23, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure SIP submission; March 18, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and December 4, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 25, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07669 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 68 Friday, April 8, 2016 Notices AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors AGENCY:

    United States African Development Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The US African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration.

    DATES:

    The meeting date is Monday, April 25, 2016, 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting location is USADF, 1400 I St. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Tanton, 202-233-8811.

    Authority:

    Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Doris Mason Martin, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08148 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Committee (Committee) will meet in Charleston, South Carolina. Attendees may also participate via webinar and conference call. The Committee operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463). Committee information can be found at the following Web site: http: //www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/committee.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held in-person and via webinar/conference call on the following dates and times:

    • Tuesday, May 10, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.

    • Wednesday, May 11, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.

    • Thursday, May 12, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EST.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Charleston Historic Downtown, 425 Meeting Street, Charleston, South Carolina. For anyone who would like to attend via webinar and/or conference call, please visit the Web site listed above or contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the USDA Forest Service Washington Office—Yates Building, 201 14th Street SW., Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC 20250-1104. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Helwig, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 202-205-0892, or by email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is to provide:

    1. Continued deliberations on formulating advice for the Secretary,

    2. Discussion of Committee work group findings,

    3. Hearing public comments, and

    4. Administrative tasks.

    This meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral comments of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral comment should submit a request in writing by May 2, 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's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Jennifer Helwig, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street SW., Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC, 20250-1104; or by email at [email protected]. The agenda and summary of the meeting will be posted on the Committee's Web site within 21 days of the meeting.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, 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 30, 2016. Brian Ferebee. Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08176 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1612), and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 108-447). Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 20, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mystic Ranger District, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Board Coordinator, by phone at 605-440-1409 or by email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

    (1) Over-snow and Non-motorized Working Group Report update;

    (2) Elk Management Report;

    (3) Heritage and Sacred Site update;

    (4) Forest Health Working Group Recommendation for FY 16-18;

    (5) Motorized Trails and Permit Fees;

    (6) Fire Season 2016 Outlook; and

    (7) Election.

    The meeting is 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 submit a 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 Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: March 28, 2016. Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08151 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Applications for Value-Added Producer Grants AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2016 applications for the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program. Approximately $44 million is available to help agricultural producers enter into value-added activities for FY 2016, including approximately $30.25 million available through the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill), $10.75 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 and $3 million in carryover funding.

    DATES:

    You must submit your application by July 1, 2016 or it will not be considered for funding. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped or sent overnight by this date. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Electronic applications are permitted via http://www.grants.gov only, and must be received before midnight Eastern Time, June 24, 2016. Late applications are not eligible for grant funding under this Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    You should contact your USDA Rural Development State Office if you have questions about eligibility or submission requirements. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and to ask any questions about the application process. Application materials are available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/value-added-producer-grants.

    If you want to submit an electronic application, follow the instructions for the VAPG funding announcement on http://www.grants.gov. Please review the Grants.gov Web site at http://grants.gov/web/applicants/organization-registration.html for instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you are able to meet the electronic application deadline. If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where your project will primarily take place. You can find State Office Contact information at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., MS 3253, Room 4008-South, Washington, DC 20250-3253, or call 202-690-1374.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview

    Federal Agency Name: USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Value-Added Producer Grant.

    Announcement Type: Initial funding request.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.352.

    Dates: Application Deadline. You must submit your complete paper application by July 1, 2016 or it will not be considered for funding. Electronic applications must be received by http://www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern Time, June 24, 2016 or it will not be considered for funding.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0039.

    A. Program Description

    The VAPG program is authorized under section 231 of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224), as amended by section 6203 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) (see 7 U.S.C. 1632a). Applicants must adhere to the requirements contained in the program regulation, 7 CFR 4284, subpart J, which is incorporated by reference in this Notice.

    The objective of this grant program is to assist viable Independent Producers, Agricultural Producer Groups, Farmer and Rancher Cooperatives, and Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Businesses in starting or expanding value-added activities related to the processing and/or marketing of Value-Added Agricultural Products. Grants will be awarded competitively for either planning or working capital projects directly related to the processing and/or marketing of value-added products. Generating new products, creating and expanding marketing opportunities, and increasing producer income are the end goals of the program. All proposals must demonstrate economic viability and sustainability in order to compete for funding.

    Funding priority will be made available to Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, Veteran Farmers and Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, Operators of Small and Medium-Sized Farms and Ranches structured as Family Farms or Ranches, Farmer or Rancher Cooperatives, and projects proposing to develop a Mid-Tier Value Chain. See 7 CFR 4284.923 for Reserved Funds eligibility and 7 CFR 4284.924 for Priority Scoring eligibility.

    Definitions

    The terms you need to understand are defined in 7 CFR 4284.902.

    B. Federal Award Information

    Type of Instrument: Grant.

    Fiscal Year 2016 Funds: $10.75 million.

    Approximate Number of Awards: Approximately 300.

    Available Total Funding: Approximately $44 million.

    Maximum Award Amount: Planning—$75,000; Working Capital—$250,000.

    Project Period: Up to 36 months depending on the complexity of the project.

    Anticipated Award Date: September 30, 2016.

    Reservation of Funds: Ten percent of available funds for applications will be reserved for applications submitted by Beginning and Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers, and an additional ten percent of available funds for applications from farmers or ranchers proposing development of Mid-Tier Value Chains. Reserved funds not obligated prior to June 30, 2016, will be used for the VAPG general competition. If this is the case, Beginning and Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers and applicants proposing Mid-Tier Value Chains will compete with other eligible VAPG applications.

    C. Eligibility Information

    Applicants must comply with the program regulation 7 CFR part 4284 subpart J in order to meet all of the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.

    1. Eligible Applicants

    You must demonstrate that you meet all the applicant eligibility requirements of 7 CFR 4284.920 and 4284.921. This includes meeting the definition requirements at 7 CFR 4284.902 for one of the following applicant types: Independent Producer, Agricultural Producer Group, Farmer or Rancher Cooperative or Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Business and also meeting the Emerging Market, Citizenship, Legal Authority and Responsibility, Multiple Grants and Active Grants requirements of the section. Required documentation to support eligibility is contained at 7 CFR 4284.931.

    Federally-recognized Tribes and tribal entities must demonstrate that they meet the definition requirements for one of the four eligible applicant types. Rural Development State Offices and posted application toolkits will provide additional information on Tribal eligibility.

    Per 7 CFR 4284.921, an applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt.

    An Applicant may submit only one application in response to a solicitation, and must explicitly direct that it compete in either the general funds competition or in one of the named reserved funds competitions. Multiple applications from separate entities with identical or greater than 75 percent common ownership, or from a parent, subsidiary or affiliated organization (with “affiliation” defined by Small Business Administration regulation 13 CFR 121.103, or successor regulation) are not permitted. Further, Applicants who have already received a Planning Grant for the proposed project cannot receive another Planning Grant for the same project. Applicants who have already received a Working Capital Grant for the proposed project cannot receive any additional grants for that project (Proposals from previous award recipients should be substantially different in terms of products and/or markets and should not merely be extensions of previously funded projects).

    2. Cost-Sharing or Matching

    There is a matching funds requirement of at least $1 for every $1 in grant funds provided by the Agency (matching funds plus grant funds must equal proposed Total Project Costs). Matching funds may be in the form of cash or eligible in-kind contributions and may be used only for eligible project purposes. Tribal applicants may utilize grants made available under Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as their matching contribution, and should check with appropriate tribal authorities regarding the availability of such funding.

    Matching funds must be available at time of application and must be certified and verified as described in 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(3) and (4). Note that matching funds must also be discussed as part of the scoring criterion Commitments and Support as described in section E.1. (c).

    3. Project Eligibility

    You must demonstrate that you meet all the project eligibility requirements of 7 CFR 4284.922.

    (a) Product eligibility. Applicants for both planning and working capital grants must meet all requirements at 7 CFR 4284.922(a), including that your value-added product must result from one of the five methodologies identified in the definition of Value-Added Agricultural Product at 7 CFR 4284.902. In addition, you must demonstrate that, as a result of the project, the customer base for the agricultural commodity or value-added product will be expanded, by including a baseline of current customers for the commodity, and an estimated target number of customers that will result from the project; and that, a greater portion of the revenue derived from the marketing or processing of the value-added product is available to the applicant producer(s) of the agricultural commodity, by including a baseline of current revenues from the sale of the agricultural commodity and an estimate of increased revenues that will result from the project.

    (b) Purpose eligibility. Applicants for both planning and working capital grants must meet all requirements at 7 CFR 4284.922(b) regarding maximum grant amounts, verification of matching funds, eligible and ineligible uses of grant and matching funds, a substantive work plan and budget.

    (i) Planning Grants. A planning grant is used to fund development of a defined program of economic planning activities to determine the viability of a potential value-added venture, and specifically for the purpose of paying for a qualified consultant to conduct and develop a feasibility study, business plan, and/or marketing plan associated with the processing and/or marketing of a value-added agricultural product. Planning grant funds may not be used to fund working capital activities.

    (ii) Working Capital Grants. This type of grant provides funds to operate a value-added project, specifically to pay the eligible project expenses related to the processing and/or marketing of the value-added product that are eligible uses of grant funds. Working capital funds may not be used for planning purposes.

    (c) Reserved Funds Eligibility. To qualify for Reserved Funds as a Beginning or Socially-Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher or if you propose to develop a Mid-Tier Value Chain, you must meet the requirements found at 7 CFR 4284.923. If your application is eligible, but is not awarded under the Reserved Funds, it will automatically be considered for general funds in that same fiscal year, as funding levels permit.

    (d) Priority Points. To qualify for Priority Points for projects that contribute to increasing opportunities for Beginning Farmers or Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers, or if you are an Operator of a Small- or Medium-sized Farm or Ranch structured as a Family Farm, a Veteran Farmer or Rancher, propose a Mid-Tier Value Chain project, or are a Farmer or Rancher Cooperative, you must meet the applicable eligibility requirements at 7 CFR 4284.923 and 4284.924 and must address the relevant proposal evaluation criterion.

    Priority points will also be awarded during the scoring process to eligible Agricultural Producer Groups, Farmer or Cooperatives, and Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Business Ventures that best contribute to creating or increasing marketing opportunities for Beginning Farmers or Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers, and/or Veteran Farmers or Ranchers. You must meet the eligibility requirements at 7 CFR 4284.923 and 4284.924 and must address the relevant proposal evaluation criterion.

    4. Eligible Uses of Grant and Matching Funds

    Eligible uses of grant and matching funds are discussed, along with examples, in 7 CFR 4284.923. In general, grant and cost-share matching funds have the same use restrictions and must be used to fund only the costs for eligible purposes as defined at 7 CFR 4284.923 (a) and (b).

    5. Ineligible Uses of Grant and Matching Funds

    Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent Conflict of Interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their Immediate Family members having a personal, professional, financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; including organizational conflicts, and conflicts that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. A list (not all inclusive) of ineligible uses of grant and matching funds is found in 7 CFR 4284.926.

    D. Application and Submission Information 1. Address To Request Applications

    The application toolkit, regulation, and official program notification for this funding opportunity can be obtained online at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/value-added-producer-grants. You may also contact your USDA Rural Development State Office by visiting http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. You may also obtain a copy by calling 202-690-1374. The toolkit contains an application checklist, templates, required grant forms, and instructions. Although the Agency highly recommends their use, use of the templates in the toolkit is not mandatory.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission

    You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. Your application must contain all required information.

    To submit an application electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at http://www.grants.gov. Please note that we cannot accept emailed or faxed applications.

    You can locate the Grants.gov downloadable application package for this program by using a keyword, the program name, or the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program.

    When you enter the Grants.gov Web site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    To use Grants.gov, you must already have a DUNS number and you must also be registered and maintain registration in SAM. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.

    You must submit all of your application documents electronically through Grants.gov.

    After electronically submitting an application through Grants.gov, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number.

    If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where your project will primarily take place. You can find State Office Contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. An optional-use Agency application template is available online at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/value-added-producer-grants.

    Your application must contain all of the required forms and proposal elements described in 7 CFR 4284.931, unless otherwise clarified in this Notice. You are encouraged, but not required to utilize the Application Toolkits found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/value-added-producer-grants, however, you must become familiar with the program regulation at 7 CFR part 4284, subpart J in order to submit a successful application. Basic application contents are outlined below:

    • Standard Form (SF)-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” to include your DUNS number and SAM (CAGE) code and expiration date. Because there are no specific fields for a CAGE code and expiration date, you may identify them anywhere you want to on the form. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.

    • SF-424A, “Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package.

    • SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package.

    • Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities.

    • You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.

    • Executive Summary and Abstract. A one-page Executive Summary containing the following information: Legal name of applicant entity, application type (planning or working capital), applicant type, amount of grant request, a summary of your project, and whether you are submitting a simplified application, and whether you are requesting Reserved Funds. Also include a separate abstract of up to 100 words briefly describing your project.

    • Eligibility discussion.

    • Work plan and budget.

    • Performance evaluation criteria.

    • Proposal evaluation criteria.

    • Certification and verification of matching funds.

    • Reserved Funds and Priority Point documentation (as applicable).

    • Appendices containing required supporting documentation.

    3. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and System for Awards Management (SAM)

    In order to be eligible (unless you are accepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d), you are required to:

    (a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711;

    (b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/; and

    (c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

    If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. Please refer to Section F. 2. for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.

    4. Submission Dates and Times

    Application Deadline Date: July 1, 2016.

    Explanation of Deadlines: Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight by July 1, 2016. The Agency will determine whether your application is late based on the date shown on the postmark or shipping invoice. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day. Late applications will automatically be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated further.

    Electronic applications must be received at http://www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern time, June 24, 2016 to be eligible for FY 2016 grant funding. Please review the Grants.gov Web site, http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp for instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you are able to meet the electronic application deadline. Grants.gov will not accept applications submitted after the deadline.

    5. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, applies to this program. This EO requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. A list of States that maintain a SPOC may be obtained at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc. If your State has a SPOC, you must submit your application directly for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to RD for consideration as part of your application. If your State has not established a SPOC or you do not want to submit your application to the SPOC, RD will submit your application to the SPOC or other appropriate agency or agencies.

    6. Funding Restrictions

    Funding limitations and reservations found in the program regulation at 7 CFR 4284.927 will apply, including:

    (a) Use of Funds. Grant funds may be used to pay up to 50 percent of the total eligible project costs, subject to the limitations established for maximum total grant amount. Grant funds may not be used to pay any costs of the project incurred prior to the date of grant approval. Grant and matching funds may only be used for eligible purposes. (see examples of eligible and ineligible uses in 7 CFR 4284.923 and 4284.924, respectively).

    (b) Grant Term (project period). Your project timeframe or grant period can be a maximum of 36 months in length from the date of award. Your proposed grant period should begin no earlier than the anticipated award announcement date in this notice and should end no later than 36 months following that date. If you receive an award, your grant period will be revised to begin on the actual date of award—the date the grant agreement is executed by the Agency—and your grant period end date will be adjusted accordingly. Your project activities must begin within 90 days of that date of award. The length of your grant period should be based on your project's complexity, as indicated in your application work plan. For example, it is expected that most planning grants can be completed within 12 months.

    (c) Program Income. If income (Program Income) is earned during the grant period as a result of the project activities, it is subject to the requirements in 2 CFR 200.80, and must be managed and reported accordingly.

    (d) Majority Controlled Producer-Based Business. The aggregate amount of awards to Majority Controlled Producer-Based Businesses in response to this announcement shall not exceed 10 percent of the total funds obligated for the program during the fiscal year.

    (e) Reserved Funds. Ten percent of all funds available for FY 2016 will be reserved to fund projects that benefit Beginning Farmers or Ranchers, or Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers. In addition, 10 percent of total funding available will be used to fund projects that propose development of Mid-Tier Value Chains as part of a Local or Regional Supply Chain Network. See related definitions in 7 CFR 4284.902.

    (f) Disposition of Reserved Funds Not Obligated. For this announcement, any reserved FY 2015 funds that have not been obligated by June 30, 2016, will be available to the Secretary to make VAPG grants in accordance with 7 CFR 4284.927(d).

    7. Other Submission Requirements (a) National Environmental Policy Act

    This notice has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program,” or successor regulation. We have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required because the issuance of regulations and instructions, as well as amendments to them, describing administrative and financial procedures for processing, approving, and implementing the Agency's financial programs is categorically excluded in the Agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation found at 7 CFR 1940.310(e)(3) of subpart G, “Environmental Program.” We have determined that this Notice does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Individual awards under this Notice are hereby classified as Categorical Exclusions according to 7 CFR 1940.310(e), which do not require any additional documentation.

    (b) Civil Rights Compliance Requirements

    All grants made under this Notice are subject to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

    E. Application Review Information

    Applications will be reviewed and processed as described at 7 CFR 4284.940. The Agency will review your application to determine if it is complete and eligible. If at any time, the Agency determines that your application is ineligible, you will be notified in writing as to the reasons it was determined ineligible and you will be informed of your review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available FY 2016 funds.

    The Agency will only score applications in which the applicant and project are eligible, which are complete and sufficiently responsive to program requirements, and in which the Agency agrees on the likelihood of financial feasibility for working capital requests. We will score your application according to the procedures and criteria specified in 7 CFR 4284.942, and with tiered scoring thresholds as specified below.

    1. Scoring Criteria

    For each criterion, you must show how the project has merit and why it is likely to be successful. If you do not address all parts of the criterion, or do not sufficiently communicate relevant project information, you will receive lower scores. VAPG is a competitive program, so you will receive scores based on the quality of your responses. Simply addressing the criteria will not guarantee higher scores. The maximum number of points that can be awarded to your application is 100. For this announcement, the minimum score requirement for funding is 50 points.

    The Agency application toolkit provides additional instruction to help you to respond to the criteria below.

    (a) Nature of the Proposed Venture (graduated score 0-30 points).

    For both planning and working capital grants, you should discuss the technological feasibility of the project, as well as operational efficiency, profitability, and overall economic sustainability resulting from the project. In addition, demonstrate the potential for expanding the customer base for the agricultural commodity or value-added product, and the expected increase in revenue returns to the producer-owners providing the majority of the raw agricultural commodity to the project. You should reference third-party data and other information that specifically supports your value-added project; discuss the value-added process you are proposing; potential markets and distribution channels; the value to be added to the raw commodity through the value-added process; cost and availability of inputs, your experience in marketing the proposed or similar product; business financial statements; and any other relevant information that supports the viability of your project. Working capital applicants should demonstrate that these outcomes will result from the project. Planning grant applicants should describe the expected results, and the reasons supporting those expectations.

    Points will be awarded as follows:

    (i) 0 points will be awarded if you do not substantively address the criterion.

    (ii) 1-5 points will be awarded if you do not address each of the following: technological feasibility, operational efficiency, profitability, and overall economic sustainability.

    (iii) 6-13 points will be awarded if you address technological feasibility, operational efficiency, profitability, and overall economic sustainability, but do not reference third-party information that supports the success of your project.

    (iv) 14-22 points will be awarded if you address technological feasibility, operational efficiency, profitability, and overall economic sustainability, supported by third-party information demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success.

    (v) 23-30 points will be awarded if all criterion components are well addressed, supported by third-party information, and demonstrate a high likelihood of success.

    (b) Qualifications of Project Personnel (graduated score 0-20 points).

    You must identify all individuals who will be responsible for completing the proposed tasks in the work plan, including the roles and activities that owners, staff, contractors, consultants or new hires may perform; and show that these individuals have the necessary qualifications and expertise, including those hired to do market or feasibility analyses, or to develop a business operations plan for the value-added venture. You must include the qualifications of those individuals responsible for leading or managing the total project (applicant owners or project managers), as well as those individuals responsible for actually conducting the various individual tasks in the work plan (such as consultants, contractors, staff or new hires). You must discuss the commitment and the availability of any consultants or other professionals to be hired for the project. If staff or consultants have not been selected at the time of application, you must provide specific descriptions of the qualifications required for the positions to be filled. Applications that demonstrate the strong credentials, education, capabilities, experience and availability of project personnel that will contribute to a high likelihood of project success will receive more points than those that demonstrate less potential for success in these areas.

    Points will be awarded as follows:

    (i) 0 points will be awarded if you do not substantively address the criterion.

    (ii) 1-4 points will be awarded if qualifications and experience of all staff is not addressed and/or if necessary qualifications of unfilled positions are not provided.

    (iii) 5-9 points will be awarded if all project personnel are identified but do not demonstrate qualifications or experience relevant to the project.

    (iv) 10-14 will be awarded if most key personnel demonstrate strong credentials and/or experience, and availability indicating a reasonable likelihood of success.

    (v) 15-20 points will be awarded if all personnel demonstrate strong, relevant credentials or experience, and availability indicating a high likelihood of project success.

    (c) Commitments and Support (graduated score 0-10 points).

    Producer commitments to the project will be evaluated based on the number of independent producers currently involved in the project; and the nature, level and quality of their contributions, including matching contributions. End-user commitments will be evaluated on the basis of potential or identified markets and the potential amount of output to be purchased, as indicated by letters of intent or contracts from potential buyers referenced within the application. Other third-party commitments to the project will be evaluated based on the critical and tangible nature of their contribution to the project, such as technical assistance, storage, processing, marketing, or distribution arrangements that are necessary for the project to proceed; and the level and quality of these contributions. All cash or in-kind contributions from producers, end users, or other contributors should be discussed. End-user commitments may include contracts or letters of intent or interest in purchasing the value-added product. Letters of commitment by producers, end-users, and third-parties should be summarized as part of your response to this criterion, and the letters should be included in Appendix B. Applications that demonstrate the project has strong direct financial support in the form of cash matching contributions and strong technical and logistical support to successfully complete the project will receive more points than those that demonstrate less potential for success in these areas.

    Points will be awarded as follows:

    (i) 0 points will be awarded if you do not substantively address the criterion.

    (ii) 1-3 points will be awarded if you are the only producer participating in the project, AND show real, direct support from at least one end-user or third-party contributor.

    (iii) 4-6 points will be awarded if you, as the applicant, are the only producer participating in the project, AND show strong financial commitment in the form of cash matching contributions to the project AND measurable commitment or interest in purchasing the value-added product from at least one end-user; AND commitment or tangible support from at least one other third-party contributor; OR you, as the applicant, demonstrate participation from multiple producers, AND measurable commitment or interest in purchasing the value-added product from at least one end-user; AND commitment or tangible support from at least one third party contributor.

    (iv) 7-10 points will be awarded if you, as the applicant, show strong financial commitment to the project in the form of cash matching contributions, AND participation from additional producers, AND measurable commitment or interest from multiple end-users, AND commitment or tangible support from multiple third-party contributors.

    (d) Work Plan and Budget (graduated score 0-20 points).

    You must submit a comprehensive work plan and budget (for full details, see 7 CFR 4284.922(b)(5)). Your work plan must provide specific and detailed descriptions of the tasks and the key project personnel that will accomplish the project's goals. The budget must present a detailed breakdown of all estimated costs of project activities and allocate those costs among the listed tasks. You must show the source and use of both grant and matching funds for all tasks. Matching funds must be spent at a rate equal to, or in advance of, grant funds. An eligible start and end date for the project and for individual project tasks must be clearly shown and may not exceed Agency specified timeframes for the grant period. Working capital applications must include an estimate of program income expected to be earned during the grant period (see 2 CFR 200.307).

    Points will be awarded as follows:

    (i) 0 points will be awarded if you do not substantively address the criterion.

    (ii) 1-7 points will be awarded if the work plan and budget do not account for all project goals, tasks, costs, timelines, and responsible personnel.

    (iii) 8-14 points will be awarded if you provide a clear, comprehensive work plan detailing all project goals, tasks, timelines, costs, and responsible personnel in a logical and realistic manner that demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success.

    (iv) 15-20 points will be awarded if you provide a clear, comprehensive work plan detailing all project goals, tasks, timelines, costs, and responsible personnel in a logical and realistic manner that demonstrates a high likelihood of success.

    (e) Priority Points up to 10 points (lump sum 0 or 5 points plus, graduated score 0-5 points).

    It is recommended that you use the Agency application package when applying for priority points and refer to the requirements specified in 7 CFR 4284.924. Priority points may be awarded in both the general funds and Reserved Funds competitions.

    (i) 5 points will be awarded if you meets the requirements for one of the following categories and provide the documentation described in 7 CFR 4284.923 and 4284.924 as applicable: Beginning Farmer or Rancher, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher, Veteran Farmer or Rancher, or Operator of a Small or Medium-sized Farm or Ranch that is structured as a Family Farm, Farmer or Rancher Cooperative, or are proposing a Mid-Tier Value Chain project.

    (ii) Up to 5 priority points will be awarded if you are an Agricultural Producer Group, Farmer or Rancher Cooperative, or Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Business Venture (referred to below as “applicant group”) whose project “best contributes to creating or increasing marketing opportunities” for Operators of Small- and Medium-sized Farms and Ranches that are structured as Family Farms, Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers (referred to below as “priority groups”). For each of the priority point levels below, applications must demonstrate how the proposed project will contribute to new or increased marketing opportunities for respective priority groups. Guidance on relevant information required to adequately demonstrate this requirement can be found in program application package.

    (A) 2 priority points will be awarded if the existing membership of the applicant group is comprised of either more than 50 percent of any one of the four priority groups or more than 50 percent of any combination of the four priority groups.

    (B) 1 priority point will be awarded if the existing membership of the applicant group is comprised of two or more of the priority groups. One point is awarded regardless of whether a group's membership is comprised of two, three, or all four of the priority groups.

    (C) 2 priority points will be awarded if the applicant's proposed project will increase the number of priority groups that comprise applicant membership by one or more priority groups. However, if an applicant group's membership is already comprised of all four priority groups, such an applicant would not be eligible for points under this criterion because there is no opportunity to increase the number of priority groups. Note also that this criterion does not consider either the percentage of the existing membership that is comprised of the four priority groups or the number of priority groups currently comprising the applicant group's membership.

    (f) Priority Categories (graduated score 0-10 points).

    The Administrator of the Agency may choose to award up to 10 points to an application to improve the geographic diversity of awardees in a fiscal year.

    2. Review and Selection Process

    The Agency will select applications for award under this Notice in accordance with the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4284.950(a).

    If your application is eligible and complete, it will be qualitatively scored by at least two reviewers based on criteria specified in section E.1. of this Notice. One of these reviewers will be an experienced RD employee from your servicing State Office and at least one additional reviewer will be a non-Federal, independent reviewer, who must meet the following qualifications. Independent reviewers must have at least bachelor's degree in one or more of the following fields: Agri-business, agricultural economics, agriculture, animal science, business, marketing, economics or finance; and a minimum of 8 years of experience in an agriculture-related field (e.g. farming, marketing, consulting, or research; or as university faculty, trade association official or non-Federal government official in an agriculturally-related field). Each reviewer will score evaluation criteria (a) through (d) and the totals for each reviewer will be added together and averaged. The RD State Office reviewer will also assign priority points based on criterion (e) in section E.1. of this Notice. These will be added to the average score. The sum of these scores will be ranked highest to lowest and this will comprise the initial ranking.

    The Administrator of the Agency may choose to award up to 10 Administrator priority points based on criterion (f) in section E.1. of this Notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score for a total possible score of 100.

    A final ranking will be obtained based solely on the scores received for criteria (a) through (e). A minimum score of 50 points is required for funding. Applications for Reserved Funds will be funded in rank order until funds are depleted. Unfunded reserve applications will be returned to the general funds where applications will be funded in rank order until the funds are expended. Funding for Majority Controlled Producer-Based Business Ventures is limited to 10 percent of total grant funds expected to be obligated as a result of this Notice. These applications will be funded in rank order until the funding limitation has been reached. Grants to these applicants from Reserved Funds will count against this funding limitation. In the event of tied scores, the Administrator shall have discretion in breaking ties.

    If your application is ranked, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information 1. Federal Award Notices

    If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.

    If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available FY 2016 funding.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart J; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2, and successor regulations to these parts.

    In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). More information on these requirements can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/value-added-producer-grants.

    The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

    (a) Agency approved Grant Agreement.

    (b) Letter of Conditions.

    (c) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

    (d) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

    (e) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”

    (f) Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

    (g) Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”

    (h) Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.

    (i) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”

    (j) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

    (k) Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”

    3. Reporting

    After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following, as indicated in the Grant Agreement:

    (a) A SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 45 working days after end of the semiannual period). For the purposes of this grant, semiannual periods end on March 31st and September 30th. The project performance reports shall include the elements prescribed in the grant agreement.

    (b) A final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.

    (c) Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.

    G. Agency Contacts

    If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the State Office as identified in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. You are also encouraged to visit the application Web site for application tools, including an application guide and templates. The Web site address is: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/value-added-producer-grants. You may also contact National Office staff: Tracey Kennedy, VAPG Program Lead, [email protected], or Shantelle Gordon, [email protected], or call the main line at 202-690-1374.

    H. Nondiscrimination Statement

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

    If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

    If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]

    Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

    Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Samuel Rikkers, Administrator, Rural Business—Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08028 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees Program AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).

    SUMMARY:

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces that it is accepting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2016 for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program (the Broadband Program).

    In addition to announcing the application window, RUS announces the minimum and maximum amounts for broadband loans for FY 2016.

    DATES:

    Applications under this NOSA will be accepted immediately and must be submitted through the Agency's online application system no later than July 7, 2016 to be eligible for FY 2016 broadband loan funding. Applications are subject to the requirements of the interim final regulation published in the Federal Register at Vol. 80, No. 146 on Thursday, July 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact Shawn Arner, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Loan Originations and Approval Division, Rural Utilities Service, STOP 1597, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1597, Telephone: (202) 720-0800, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information

    The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (the Broadband Program) is authorized by the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) also referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill.

    During FY 2016, loans will be made available for the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment to provide service at the broadband lending speed for eligible rural areas. Applications must be submitted in accordance with the interim final rule published July 30, 2015.

    For questions about the requirements of completing an application please use the RUS contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Application requirements: All requirements for submission of an application under the Broadband Program have been set forth in the interim regulation published July 30, 2015.

    Application Materials: Application materials for the Broadband Program are available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/farm-bill-broadband-loans-loan-guarantees.

    Application Submission: All applications must be submitted through the Agency's online application system located at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rd-apply. Paper applications will not be accepted.

    Minimum and Maximum Loan Amounts

    Loans under this authority will not be made for less than $100,000. The maximum loan amount that will be considered for FY 2016 is $10,000,000.

    Required Definitions for Broadband Program Regulation

    The interim regulation for the Broadband Program requires that certain definitions affecting eligibility be revised and published from time to time by the agency in the Federal Register. For the purposes of this NOSA, the agency will be revising the definition of Broadband Service established therein, such that for applications under this window, existing Broadband Service shall mean the minimum rate-of-data transmission of ten megabits downstream and one megabit upstream for both fixed and mobile broadband service. On the other hand, the rate at which applicants must propose to offer new broadband service, the Broadband Lending Speed, will be a minimum bandwidth of ten megabits downstream and one megabit upstream for both fixed and mobile service to the customer.

    Priority for Approving Loan Applications

    Applications for FY 2016 will be accepted from April 8, 2016 through July 7, 2016. Although review of applications will start when they are submitted, all applications submitted by July 7, 2016, will be evaluated and ranked together on the basis of the number of unserved households in the proposed funded service area. Subject to available funding, eligible applications that propose to serve the most unserved households will receive funding offers before other eligible applications that have been submitted.

    Applications will not be accepted after July 7, 2016, until a new funding window has been opened with the publication of an additional NOSA in the Federal Register.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements associated with Broadband loans, as covered in this NOSA, have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0572-0130.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email: [email protected]

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Dated: March 30, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08040 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by June 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Washington, DC 20250-1522. FAX: (202)720-8435, Email: [email protected].

    Title: Preloan Procedures and Requirements for Telecommunications Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0079.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The burden required by this collection consists of information that will allow the Agency to determine an applicant's eligibility to borrow from the Agency under the terms of the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936 as amended (U.S.C. 912). This information is also used by the Agency to determine that the Government's security for loans made by the Agency is reasonably adequate and that the loans will be repaid within the time agreed.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9.17 hours per response.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 40.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 8.79.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,224.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205-3660, FAX: (202) 720-8435, Email: [email protected]

    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.

    Dated: March 30, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08037 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas State Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public meeting.

    DATES:

    Friday, May 6, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (CT).

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Texas State Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 11:00 a.m. (Central Time) Friday, May 6, 2016, for the purpose of discussing plans to hold a briefing meeting assessing the impact of a 2012 study by the Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A&M University and the Council of State Governments Justice Center that found ethnic and racial disparities in school discipline in Texas.

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-395-3227; when prompted, please provide conference ID number: 4227309. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement at the end of the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number. Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Members of the public may also submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by Monday, June 6, 2016. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Angela French-Bell, Regional Director, Western Regional Office, at [email protected]

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=276. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Western Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda
    I. Introductory Remarks II. Discussion of the Committee's Briefing Meeting on School Discipline III. Public Comment IV. Adjournment Public Call Information Dial: 888-395-3227 Conference ID: 4227309 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angela French-Bell, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or [email protected]

    Dated: April 5, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08108 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Census Scientific Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of advisory committee charter renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce has determined that the renewal of an advisory committee of technical advisors is necessary and in the public interest. Accordingly, the Census Bureau has chartered the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (CSAC). The renewed charter can be found on the Census Bureau's Advisory Committee Web site at the following link: https://www.census.gov/cac/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop, Chief, Advisory Committee Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-5222, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CSAC will advise the Census Bureau's Director on the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities. The CSAC will provide scientific and technical expertise from the following disciplines: demography, economics, geography, psychology, statistics, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, Information Technology and computing, marketing and other fields of expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives.

    The CSAC will function solely as an advisory body and in compliance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pursuant to subsection 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App., as amended, copies of this charter were furnished to the Library of Congress and to the following Committees of Congress:

    • Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation • Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs • Senate Committee on Finance • Senate Committee on Appropriations • House Committee on Appropriations • House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Dated: April 4, 2016. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08156 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of advisory committee charter renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce has determined that the charter renewal of the National Advisory Committee of Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations (NAC) is necessary and in the public interest. The renewed charter can be found on the Census Bureau's Advisory Committee Web site at the following link: https://www.census.gov/cac/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop, Chief, Advisory Committee Branch, Room 8H177, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-5222, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Census Bureau's National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations will advise the Director of the Census Bureau on the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities. The NAC will provide race, ethnic, and other population expertise from the following disciplines: economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, behavioral and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census.

    The NAC will function solely as an advisory body and in compliance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pursuant to subsection 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App., as amended, copies of this charter were furnished to the Library of Congress and to the following Committees of Congress:

    • Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation • Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs • Senate Committee on Finance • Senate Committee on Appropriations • House Committee on Appropriations • House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Dated: April 4, 2016. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08164 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census National Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public virtual meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a virtual meeting of the National Advisory Committee (NAC). The Committee will address updates on the 2015 National Content Test and Tribal Enrollment Question Focus Groups. The NAC will meet virtually on Thursday, April 21, 2016. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committees Web site for the most current meeting agenda at: http://www.census.gov/cac/.

    DATES:

    April 21, 2016. The virtual meeting will begin at approximately 2:00 p.m. ET and end at approximately 4:00 p.m. ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via teleconference. To attend, participants should call the following phone number to access the audio portion of the meeting: 1-800-369-1730, passcode: 5198433. The meeting will be available via WebEx, please CLICK HERE for access. The meeting number is 744882915.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop, Advisory Committee Branch Chief, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, [email protected], Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-5222. For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NAC was established in March 2012 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10). The NAC members are appointed by the Director, Census Bureau, and consider topics such as hard to reach populations, race and ethnicity, language, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, rural populations, and population segments with limited access to technology. The Committee also advises on data privacy and confidentiality, among other issues.

    All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on April 21, 2016. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to: [email protected] (subject line “April 21, 2016, NAC Virtual Meeting Public Comment”), or by letter submission to the Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H119, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08167 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-17-2016] Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Max Home, LLC; Subzone 158F (Upholstered Furniture); Iuka and Fulton, Mississippi

    The Greater Mississippi Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 158, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Max Home, LLC (Max Home), for its facilities in Iuka and Fulton, Mississippi. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 17, 2016.

    Max Home previously had authority to conduct cut-and-sew activity using certain foreign micro-denier suede upholstery fabrics to produce upholstered furniture and related parts (upholstery cover sets) on a restricted basis (see Board Order 1744, 76 FR 11425, March 2, 2011). Board Order 1744 authorized the production of upholstered furniture (chairs, seats, sofas, sleep sofas, and sectionals) for a five-year period, with a scope of authority that only provided FTZ savings on a limited quantity (2.23 million square yards per year) of foreign origin, micro-denier suede upholstery fabric finished with a hot caustic soda solution process (i.e., authorized fabrics). All foreign upholstery fabrics other than micro-denier suede finished with a hot caustic soda solution process (i.e., unauthorized fabrics) used in Max Home's production within Subzone 158F were subject to full customs duties.

    The current request seeks to renew Max Home's previously approved FTZ authority indefinitely (with no increase in the company's annual quantitative limit of 2.23 million square yards) and to add foreign-status leather and certain polyurethane-type fabrics to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Max Home from customs duty payments on the foreign-status fabrics used in export production. On its domestic sales, Max Home would be able to apply the finished upholstery cover set (i.e., furniture part) or finished furniture duty rate (free) for the previously authorized fabrics and the additional fabrics (indicated below). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    Authority to admit foreign-status fabrics to Subzone 158F would only involve micro-denier suede upholstery fabrics finished with a hot caustic soda solution process (classified within HTSUS Headings 5407, 5512, 5515, 5516, 5801, and 5903), polyurethane fabrics backed with ground leather (5903.20.2500), wet coagulation process 100 percent polyurethane coated fabrics (5903.20.2500), and upholstery leather (Heading 4107), as detailed in the notification (duty rate ranges from free to 14.9%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 18, 2016.

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

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

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08144 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 160329302-6302-01] Reporting for Calendar Year 2015 on Offsets Agreements Related to Sales of Defense Articles or Defense Services to Foreign Countries or Foreign Firms AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; annual reporting requirements.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is to remind the public that U.S. firms are required to report annually to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually to Commerce information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative. This year, such reports must include relevant information from calendar year 2015 and must be submitted to Commerce no later than June 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit reports in both hard copy and electronically. Address the hard copy to “Offsets Program Manager, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Room 3878, Washington, DC 20230”. Submit electronic copies toy to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronald DeMarines, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: 202-482-3755; fax: 202-482-5650; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 723(a)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA) (50 U.S.C. 4568 (2015)) requires the President to submit an annual report to Congress on the impact of offsets on the U.S. defense industrial base. Section 723(a)(2) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to prepare the President's report and to develop and administer the regulations necessary to collect offsets data from U.S. defense exporters.

    The authorities of the Secretary regarding offsets have been delegated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The regulations associated with offsets reporting are set forth in part 701 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Offsets are compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-to-government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services, as defined by the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 120-130). Offsets are also applicable to certain items controlled on the Commerce Control list (CCL) and with an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) including the numeral “6” as its third character. The CCL is found in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations.

    An example of an offset is as follows: a company that is selling a fleet of military aircraft to a foreign government may agree to offset the cost of the aircraft by providing training assistance to plant managers in the purchasing country. Although this distorts the true price of the aircraft, the foreign government may require this sort of extra compensation as a condition of awarding the contract to purchase the aircraft. As described in the regulations, U.S. firms are required to report information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative.

    Commerce's annual report to Congress includes an aggregated summary of the data reported by industry in accordance with the offsets regulation and the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4568 (2015)). As provided by section 723(c) of the DPA, BIS will not publicly disclose individual firm information it receives through offsets reporting unless the firm furnishing the information specifically authorizes public disclosure. The information collected is sorted and organized into an aggregate report of national offsets data, and therefore does not identify company-specific information.

    In order to enable BIS to prepare the next annual offset report reflecting calendar year 2015 data, affected U.S. firms must submit required information on offsets agreements and offsets transactions from calendar year 2015 to BIS no later than June 15, 2016.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08078 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-900] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On March 3, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC).1 In that notice, we preliminarily determined that Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. (Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd.) is the successor-in-interest to Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. (Wuhan Wanbang Co.) for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash deposits and liabilities.2 No interested party submitted comments on or requested a public hearing to discuss the Initiation and Preliminary Results. For these final results, the Department continues to find that Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Wuhan Wanbang Co.

    1See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 81 FR 11177 (March 3, 2016) (Initiation and Preliminary Results).

    2Id.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yang Jin Chun 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) 482-5760.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Effective May 4, 2015, Wuhan Wanbang Co. (1) changed its legal status from a limited liability company to a joint-stock limited company and (2) changed its name to Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co., Ltd.3 On December 22, 2015, Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd. requested that the Department initiate an expedited changed circumstances review and determine that Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Wuhan Wanbang Co.

    3See Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd.'s request for a changed circumstances review dated December 22, 2015.

    On March 3, 2016, we initiated this changed circumstances review and preliminarily determined that Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Wuhan Wanbang Co.4 In the Initiation and Preliminary Results, we provided all interested parties with an opportunity to comment or request a public hearing regarding our preliminary results. We received no comments or requests for a public hearing.

    4See Initiation and Preliminary Results.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of the order are semifinished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).

    Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the order. Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. On October 11, 2011, the Department included the 6804.21.00.00 HTSUS classification number to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).5 The tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    5See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 76128, 76130 (December 6, 2011).

    Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    For the reasons stated in the Initiation and Preliminary Results, and because we received no comments from interested parties to the contrary, we continue to find that Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Wuhan Wanbang Co.6 As a result of this determination, we find that Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd. should receive the cash deposit rate previously assigned to Wuhan Wanbang Co. in the most recently completed administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.7 Consequently, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Wuhan Wanbang Co., Ltd., and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register at 2.34 percent, which is the current antidumping duty cash deposit rate for Wuhan Wanbang Co.8 This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Initiation and Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 11778-79.

    7See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 81 FR 222 (January 5, 2016).

    8See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 32344, 32345 (June 8, 2015).

    This notice of final results is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08141 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-535-904] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to exporters/producers of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular welded pipe) from Pakistan. The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.1 Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    1 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2), the Department's Initiation Notice stated that the POI was January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 80 FR 73704 (November 25, 2015) (Initiation Notice). The Department, however, identified public information supporting the conclusion that both the Government of Pakistan (the GOP) and the sole company selected for individual examination (i.e., the mandatory respondent), International Industries Limited (IIL), operate according to an annual fiscal year beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30. See Department Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Period of Investigation,” December 16, 2015 (POI Memorandum); see also Letter from the Department, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Countervailing Duty Questonnaire,” December 16, 2015 (CVD Questionnaire), at I-4. Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2), we determined that July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, is the appropriate POI for this proceeding. See POI Memorandum; see also CVD Questionnaire at I-4. Although the Department provided interested parties with the opportunity to comment on the modified POI, we received no comments.

    DATES:

    Effective April 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kaitlin Wojnar, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination

    On the same day that the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, the Department also initiated an antidumping duty (AD) investigation of circular welded pipe from Pakistan.2 The AD and CVD investigations cover the same class or kind of merchandise from the same country. On March 29, 2016, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Bull Moose Tube Company, EXLTUBE, Wheatland Tube Company, and Western Tube and Conduit (collectively, Petitioners) requested alignment of the final CVD determination with the final AD determination regarding circular welded pipe from Paksitan.3 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of circular welded pipe from Pakistan. Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently due no later than August 15, 2016.

    2See Initiation Notice, 80 FR at 73704; see also See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 73708 (November 25, 2015).

    3See Letter from Petitioners, “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Request for Alignment,” March 29, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is circular welded pipe from Pakistan. Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, which resulted in one clarification to the scope language and are addressed, in detail, in the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.4 For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I to this notice.

    4See Department Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe form Pakistan; Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. We preliminarily determine that, for each of the programs found countervailable, there is a subsidy (i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority,” giving rise to a benefit to the recipient) and that the subsidy is specific. For a full description of the methodology underlying the Department's preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.5 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    5See Department Memorandum, “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Decision Memorandum,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    For this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department relied on facts otherwise available because necessary information is not available on the record.6 Furthermore, the GOP and IIL failed to provide information requested by the Department. By refusing to participate as respondents, IIL and the GOP significantly impeded the Department's investigation.7 Because the GOP and IIL are uncooperative (i.e., they did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for necessary information), the Department has drawn an adverse inference in selecting information from facts otherwise available, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. Specifically, the Department applied an adverse inference to find that the programs on which the Department initiated the investigation are countervailable. The Department has also applied an adverse inference in its calculation of an estimated ad valorem countervailable subsidy rate for IIL. Additional information is provided in the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    6See section 776(a)(1) of the Act.

    7See section 776(a)(2)(B)-(C) of the Act.

    A complete list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at Appendix II to this notice.

    Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, the Department applied facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, to determine a countervailable subsidy rate for the non-cooperative mandatory respondent, IIL. With respect to the “all-others” rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that, if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all individually-investigated exporters/producers are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act (i.e., based entirely on facts otherwise available), the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters/producers not individually-examined. In this case, as noted above, the countervailable subsidy rate assigned to IIL is based entirely on facts otherwise available under section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record upon which to determine an all-others rate. As a result, under section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we are assigning IIL's rate as the all-others rate. This method is consistent with the Department's established practice.8

    8See, e.g., Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 79 FR 59221 (October 1, 2014), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (assigning the sole mandatory respondent's rate, which was based on AFA, as the all-others rate); see also Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 64468, 64470 (October 22, 2012) (averaging two total AFA respondents' rates together to determine the all-others rate); Certain Potassium Phosphate Sales from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30375 (June 1, 2010) (assigning the rate for three total AFA companies as the all-others rate).

    We preliminarily determine estimated countervailable subsidy rates as follows:

    Exporter/producer Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • International Industries Limited 64.81 All-Others 64.81

    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of circular welded pipe from Pakistan, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation,” that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Because the Department has reached its conclusions on the basis of adverse facts available, the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination are not proprietary in nature and are described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing.9 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests for non-scope issues, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing request regarding scope issues, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.

    9See 19 CFR351.309(c)-(d), 19 CFR 351.310(c); see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation available to the ITC. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided that the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination no more than 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which:

    (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

    (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;

    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;

    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;

    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;

    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;

    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;

    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;

    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;

    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;

    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;

    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;

    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;

    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or

    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish.

    Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.

    Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.

    Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:

    O.D. in inches (nominal) Wall
  • thickness
  • in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Gage
    1.315 0.035 20 1.315 0.047 18 1.315 0.055 17 1.315 0.065 16 1.315 0.072 15 1.315 0.083 14 1.315 0.095 13 1.660 0.055 17 1.660 0.065 16 1.660 0.083 14 1.660 0.095 13 1.660 0.109 12 1.900 0.047 18 1.900 0.055 17 1.900 0.065 16 1.900 0.072 15 1.900 0.095 13 1.900 0.109 12 2.375 0.047 18 2.375 0.055 17 2.375 0.065 16 2.375 0.072 15 2.375 0.095 13 2.375 0.109 12 2.375 0.120 11 2.875 0.109 12 2.875 0.165 8 3.500 0.109 12 3.500 0.165 8 4.000 0.148 9 4.000 0.165 8 4.500 0.203 7

    The scope of this investigation does not include:

    (a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192;

    (b) finished electrical conduit, i.e., Electrical Rigid Steel Conduit (also known as Electrical Rigid Metal Conduit and Electrical Rigid Metal Steel Conduit), Finished Electrical Metallic Tubing, and Electrical Intermediate Metal Conduit, which are defined by specifications such as American National Standard (ANSI) C80.1-2005, ANSI C80.3-2005, or ANSI C80.6-2005, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) UL-6, UL-797, or UL-1242;

    (c) finished scaffolding, i.e., component parts of final, finished scaffolding that enter the United States unassembled as a “kit.” A kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of component parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary component parts to fully assemble final, finished scaffolding;

    (d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;

    (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;

    (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and

    (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II— List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Alignment IV. Scope Comments V. Scope of the Investigation VI. Respondent Selection VII. Injury Test VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences IX. Calculation of the All-Others Rate X. ITC Notification XI. Disclosure and Public Comment XII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-08147 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, May 2, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. until 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via Internet Webinar. Detailed connection details are available at http://www.mafmc.org. To join the Webinar, follow this link and enter the online meeting room: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/april2016scoq/.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to develop a fishery performance report by the Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel. The intent of this report is to facilitate structured input from the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel members to the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) on setting catch and landings limits for 2017-18, changes that may be occurring in the fisheries, and other fishery-related issues.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08129 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 151014950-5950-01] RIN 0648-XE260 Notice of Availability of a Draft NOAA/NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a Draft NOAA/NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 8, 2016, NOAA released the NOAA Commercial Space Policy. Consistent with that policy, the Draft National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process identifies the NESDIS process for engagement with the commercial sector by which NESDIS will assess and pursue commercial opportunities to support NOAA's space-based observational information requirements. In order to ensure consideration of a broad range of ideas for optimal methods of engaging with the commercial sector, NESDIS seeks comments on the Draft NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process. Through http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NESDIS-2015-0132, the public can view the Draft NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process, submit ideas, review submissions from other parties, and make comments.

    All comments are welcome. In particular, NOAA would like comments on the following areas:

    What contractual or other mechanisms could NOAA use to work with commercial sector data providers beyond traditional acquisition approaches?

    What steps should NOAA take to consider the long-term viability of a commercial data provider prior to an operational data purchase?

    What are the key aspects of demonstration projects that allow the commercial sector to gain necessary insights?

    What are the key aspects of demonstration projects that would allow NOAA to perform the necessary data validation for the continued success of NOAA's public safety mission?

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NESDIS-2015-0132, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NESDIS-2015-0132, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to: NOAA NESDIS, c/o Ms. Kate Becker, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Room 8229, 1335 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    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 NOAA. 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. NOAA will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Additional information as well as instructions on how to submit comments can be found at the following Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NESDIS-2015-0132. The Draft NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process can also be viewed here.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kate Becker, NESDIS Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Room 8229, 1335 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. (Phone: 301-713-7049, [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NOAA is a science-based services agency charged with understanding and predicting changes in Earth systems in order to provide critical environmental intelligence to the American public, decision makers, and our partners. NOAA's environmental intelligence depends on observations obtained via a variety of systems, including satellites, ships, ground, and in situ networks.

    The NOAA Commercial Space Policy and the NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process are two steps of NOAA's multi-step approach to engaging the commercial sector to ensure best use of commercial sector capabilities. NOAA has developed these documents as timeless guidance to provide a foundation for a long-term endeavor. Both documents formally establish core principles that will guide NOAA's engagement with the commercial sector. In January, NOAA released the Commercial Space Policy to establish the broad principles for the use of commercial space-based approaches to meet NOAA's observational requirements. Now, to supplement the principles established in the policy, NESDIS has released the draft NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process.

    The NESDIS Process lays out the phases of the process that NESDIS will follow leading to any potential commercial data acquisition. First, NESDIS will release one or more Requests for Information (RFIs) to gather a sense of commercial capabilities and convey our interest in a new dataset. Based on assessment of the RFI responses, NESDIS will then release one or more Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to acquire and evaluate commercial data, which will include the data specifications we require. Based on RFP responses, NOAA may purchase data from one or more vendors for analysis and evaluation through a demonstration project.

    Because specifications are unique to each individual dataset, RFPs are an appropriate vehicle for sharing data specifications rather than through the policy or the process. The RFPs will focus on individual systems and allow for an in-depth, detailed description of requirements.

    Following the demonstration project and the pending results, NESDIS may issue one or more RFPs to purchase on-orbit observations from commercial sources for operational use by NOAA.

    These steps are formally outlined in the draft NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process, which can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NESDIS-2015-0132.

    Both the NOAA Commercial Space Policy and the NESDIS Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process firmly establish the principles that will guide NOAA's engagement with the commercial sector and the practices for how NOAA will assess, pursue, and determine the viability of using commercial data. We are actively implementing the activities identified in the two documents toward this end. In the near future, we plan to share more specific information on individual datasets and steps involved in our process. NOAA will use multiple platforms to share important information, including RFIs, RFPs, the Office of Space Commerce Web site, and ongoing engagement events to promote dialogue and transparency.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Stephen M. Volz, Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08063 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE549 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) and the NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) will convene a workshop to develop methods for conducting stock assessments of short-lived coastal pelagic species (CPS) on the U.S. West Coast. The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Monday, May 2, 2016 through Thursday, May 5, 2016. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. the first day, and at 8 a.m. each subsequent day, Pacific Standard Time. The meeting will conclude at 5 p.m. each day, or when business for the day has been completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center Pacific Room, 8901 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220; telephone: (503) 820-2280.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2409.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the workshop is to develop methods for conducting stock assessments of short-lived CPS on the U.S. West Coast, with an emphasis on the central subpopulation of northern anchovy. The workshop will include a discussion of how stock assessments and/or single point biomass estimates can be used in management. The intent is to provide recommendations to the SWFSC for use in conducting CPS stock assessments, especially for data-limited stocks.

    Special Accommodations

    Note: All foreign nationals must complete the Foreign National Registration form at https://docs.google.com/a/noaa.gov/forms/d/13wQaOZ_YcMV21b7aLYnh-WWkmpNYrYJhmDiJDIbnNOA/viewform?c=0&w=1 no later than two weeks prior to the meeting. Forms are also available by contacting Mr. Dale Sweetnam ([email protected]). Foreign nationals will not be allowed on the premises unless they have been cleared prior to arrival.

    Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Dale Sweetnam (858) 546-7170 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08128 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action deletes products from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective: May 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Deletions

    On 3/4/2016 (81 FR 11520), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s) MR 941—Cloth, Dish, Knitted Cotton, 4 pack Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lions Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency NSN(s)—Product Name(s) MR 354—Multipurpose Food Dicer Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 7530-00-NIB-0496—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0497—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0498—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0499—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0500—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0501—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0502—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0503—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0504—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 9320-00-NSH-0001—Foam Cutouts Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Epilepsy Association of Georgia, Warner Robins, GA (Deleted) Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA8501 AFSC PZIO, Robins AFB, GA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08105 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Proposed Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and, deletes products and services previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: 5/8/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to provide the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for provision by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Service Service Type: Administrative and Human Resource Contact Center Service Mandatory for: U.S. Air Force, Total Force Service Center—San Antonio; Air Force Personnel Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Randolph AFB, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries of San Antonio Contract Services, San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: Air Force Installation Contracting Agency, 338 Specialized Contracting Squadron, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s) MR 10654—Bottle, Single Wall MR 10656—Saver, Sandwich MR 10666—Thermos, 25 oz., Licensed MR 10667—Tumbler, Drinking, 16 oz., Licensed MR 10669—Kit, Party, New Year's Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 6545-01-533-7042—Quik Clot Module Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Chautauqua County Chapter, NYSARC, Jamestown, NY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Fairchild Air Force Base: Air Recovery and Rescue Squadron (Bldg. 2036), SAC/MET Office (Building 2001B), Fairchild AFB, WA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Skils'kin, Spokane, WA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Operation of Postal Service Center Service Mandatory for: Fairchild Air Force Base, Fairchild AFB, WA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Skils'kin, Spokane, WA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4620 92 CONS LGC, Fairchild AFB, WA Service Type: Library Service Mandatory for: Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: J.P. Industries, Inc., Tucson, AZ Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4877 355 CONS LGC, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08102 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Closed Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics).

    ACTION:

    Federal advisory committee meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense announces the following closed Federal advisory committee meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC).

    DATES:

    Thursday, May 5, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Friday, May 6, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    CENTRA Technology Inc., Ballston, VA on May 5, 2016, and CENTRA Technology, Inc. and the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia on May 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) J2/5/8R-AC, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The TRAC will obtain, review and evaluate classified information related to the Committee's mission to advise on technology security, Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD), counterterrorism and counterproliferation.

    Agenda: All discussions for the two day meeting will be classified at the secret level or higher. On Thursday, May 5, the Designated Federal Officer, William Hostyn, will make his remarks and then the Chair will open the meeting with comments that outline the topics to be covered in the two day meeting. Following the opening remarks, the TRAC will hear from the Principal Deputy, Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs, Dr. Arthur T. Hopkins on updates regarding the Unified Command Plan changes, funding issues, as well as other developments related to CWMD. Following that brief, there will be a classified intelligence briefing covering North Korea's recent provocations with missile tests and China's role in the region. The TRAC will then receive a classified brief on global CWMD intelligence issues from Mr. Hollatz with the National Counterproliferation Center. Next, the TRAC will hear from Mr. Baker of the Office of Net Assessment on observations regarding Russia and the Near Abroad. Following the discussion, the TRAC will discuss findings on the Future Challenges for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the implications for the Agency going forward. Specifically, how will the impending changes to the Unified Command Plan affect the mission of DTRA. The group will then consider recent provocations by North Korea, and hear an in-progress report on the North Korea study. The first day will conclude with a TRAC session to deliberate and finalize recommendations in preparation for the meeting on day two with the TRAC's sponsor, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Mr. Kendall.

    The TRAC will continue to meet on May 6, 2016. The TRAC will receive a classified brief from retired General Carns on Russia and issues related to CWMD based upon his recent trips and meetings with high-level leaders in the region. The briefing will be followed by a closed session led by Hon. Koch and Dr. Reichart on Russian provocations and the relationship to nuclear strategic stability in the region. Hon. Benkert and Dr. Choi will follow suit with a session on China. Amb Lehman will discuss future efforts of the TRAC and the way forward in 2016-2017 based upon the sponsor's guidance and direction. The TRAC will then transition to the Pentagon, where they will provide Under Secretary Kendall with a brief from the previous days meeting. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chair will adjourn the 37th Plenary.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the Department of Defense FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that the public interest requires all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because the discussions will be concerned with classified information and matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). Such classified matters are inextricably intertwined with the unclassified material and cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret-level or higher material.

    Advisory Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/J/2/5/8R-ACP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.

    Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Committee at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer's contact information is listed in this notice, or it can be obtained from the General Services Administration's FACA Database: http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=1663&aid=41. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the TRAC may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all TRAC members.

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08113 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary TRICARE Demonstration Project for the Philippines AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)/TRICARE Management Activity, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an extension of the TRICARE demonstration project for the Philippines.

    SUMMARY:

    On Wednesday, September 28, 2011, the Department of Defense (DoD) published a notice of the Philippines Demonstration Project (PDP) (76 FR 60007-60008). This notice is to advise interested parties of an extension to a Military Health System demonstration project entitled “TRICARE Demonstration Project for the Philippines.” The purpose of this demonstration is to validate an alternative approach to providing healthcare services for those beneficiaries covered under the TRICARE Standard option in the Philippines, controlling costs, eliminating any balance billing issues, and ensuring that the billing practices comply with regulatory requirements. During the initial two years of the demonstration project, significant reductions in providers under Pre-Payment Review has been observed, resulting in less fraudulent claim investigations. In addition, beneficiaries have been over 93% compliant with utilizing approved network providers in the Philippines demonstration areas. The DHA's intent is to extend the demonstration project for an additional three years in order to determine if the cost savings to the Government in terms of the average cost per paid claim along with the savings on fraudulent claims can exceed the administrative costs related to the project while ensuring Standard beneficiaries are able to access high quality medical care within TRICARE access standards.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: Effective December 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Health Agency (DHA), TRICARE Overseas Program Office, 16401 East Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CAPT Bruno Himmler, Office of the ASD (HA)—DHA, (303) 676-3728.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    TRICARE has recognized the unique circumstances existing in the Philippines which made the provision of medical care to TRICARE beneficiaries through the TRICARE Overseas program operated in other overseas locations challenging. TRICARE has experienced dramatic increases in the amount billed for healthcare services rendered in the Philippines from $15 million in 1999 to $59 million in 2009 while the number of beneficiaries has remained constant. Administrative controls such as the validation of providers, implementation of a fee reimbursement schedule, duplicate claims edits and the impact of the cost-shares and deductibles have limited actual TRICARE expenditures to $17 million in 2009 for only approximately 11,000 beneficiaries.

    In addition to these administrative controls, fraud and abuse activities in the Philippines have been a growing concern that necessitated prompt investigation and actions to reduce the number of fraudulent or abusive incidences. Measures were taken to prevent or reduce the level of fraud and abuse against TRICARE while concurrent investigations and prosecutions were conducted. In April 2008, seventeen individuals were convicted of defrauding the TRICARE program of more than $100 million.

    As a result, prepayment review of claims is conducted to identify excessive charges and aberrant practices. Prepayment review is a tool typically used on a limited basis. Nevertheless, these efforts alone are not expected to control and eliminate the rising costs in the Philippines.

    Because of this concern, the purpose of this demonstration is to validate an alternative approach to providing healthcare services for those beneficiaries covered under the TRICARE Standard option in the Philippines, controlling costs, eliminating any balance billing issues, and ensuring that the billing practices comply with regulatory requirements.

    Initial results have shown some partial success with the PDP, but additional data needs to be gathered and assessed to be able to determine the long term implications of the PDP. Therefore, DHA proposes, utilizing the new overseas contract as the vehicle, to extend the demonstration for an additional three years in the Philippines to validate that use of a well-certified and limited set of approved providers in the Philippines will result in a significant reduction in the level of claims billing issues, including beneficiaries being liable for balanced billing amounts and fraud by providers, and average cost per claim paid by the Government, while ensuring beneficiaries have sufficient access to high quality care. The demonstration would continue to be conducted under 10 U.S.C. 1092.

    During the next three years, the Government will look to expand the demonstration areas to other locations/cities with a significant Standard population. Also, the contractor will be requested to look at including pharmacies as network providers to help control costs related to outpatient prescriptions.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08065 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Science Board will meet in closed session on Thursday, May 19, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Washington, DC.

    DATES:

    Thursday, May 19, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Pentagon, Room 3E863, Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Debra Rose, Executive Officer, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via email at [email protected], or via phone at (703) 571-0084.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Board will discuss interim findings and recommendations resulting from ongoing Task Force activities. The Board will also discuss plans for future consideration of scientific and technical aspects of specific strategies, tactics, and policies as they may affect the U.S. national defense posture and homeland security.

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the Defense Science Board meeting for May 19, 2016, will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), in consultation with the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that all sessions of meeting for May 19, 2016, will be closed to the public because it will consider matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (4).

    In accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Science Board. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Designated Federal Official at the address detailed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; at any point, however, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Science Board. The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submissions with the Defense Science Board Chairperson, and ensure they are provided to members of the Defense Science Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08119 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Military Readiness Activities at the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, Oregon AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN), after carefully weighing the strategic, operational, and environmental consequences of the proposed action, announces its decision to continue and enhance training and testing activities as identified in Alternative 2 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Military Readiness Activities at the at Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, Oregon. This alternative provides for the construction and operation of new range facilities and other enhancements, and increases in training and testing activities. Alternative 2 also includes a proposal to establish new special use airspace in the form of a Military Operations Area (MOA), including the Boardman Low MOA and an extension to the existing Boardman MOA, both to the northeast of NWSTF Boardman. Implementation of Alternative 2 will enable the DoN to achieve the levels of operational readiness required under Section 5062 Title 10 U.S.C. without resulting in significant environmental impacts.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The complete text of the Record of Decision is available at http://www.NWSTFBoardmanEIS.com and at the following public library locations: Multnomah County Central, Salem Central, West Salem, Oregon Trail Heppner, Oregon Trail Boardman and the Stafford Hansell Government Center. Single copies of the Record of Decision are available upon request by contacting: NWSTF Boardman EIS Project Manager, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, 1101 Taugtog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale, Washington 98315-1101.

    Dated: April 5, 2016. C. Pan Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08130 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-751-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Negotiated Rate Service Agreement—ONEOK to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160329-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-752-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Nicor Negotiated Rate to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160329-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-753-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Occidental Energy Marketing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160329-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-754-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Infinite Energy 911250 2016-2017 Negotiated Rate to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160329-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-310-001.

    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160329-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 30, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08068 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Operating Committee Meeting April 12, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2016-04-12.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Business Issues Committee Meeting April 13, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2016-04-13.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting April 19, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/committees/meeting_materials/index.jsp?com=bic_espwg.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting April 26, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-04-26.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Management Committee April 27, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2016-04-27.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-120. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-1942. New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-966.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or [email protected]

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08074 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-79-000.

    Applicants: Atlantic Power (Williams Lake) Ltd.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of Atlantic Power (Williams Lake) Ltd.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5453.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-80-000.

    Applicants: Atlantic Power (Coastal Rivers) Corporation.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of Atlantic Power (Coastal Rivers) Corporation.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5454.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-81-000.

    Applicants: Grande Prairie Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Grande Prairie Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-94-008.

    Applicants: Avista Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: Avista Corp OATT Order 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-99-008.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order No 1000 to be effective 4/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1969-006.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-4-4_PSCo Wind Integ Stlmnt-Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5148.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-422-004.

    Applicants: Avista Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: Avista Corp Order 1000 FERC Rate Schedule No. CG2 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-429-004.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: ColumbiaGrid Fourth Amendment to be effective 4/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5212.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-731-000.

    Applicants: Green Country Energy, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to January 14, 2016 Green Country Energy, LLC Triennial MBR Update.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5153.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1301-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Emera Maine.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Changes to Bangor Hydro District Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1339-000.

    Applicants: WSPP Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: List of Members Update 2016 to be effective 3/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1340-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA No. 3654, Queue No. Y2-003 due to Breach to be effective 4/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5102.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1341-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Petition of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. for Tariff Waiver.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5478.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Dockek Numbers: ER16-1343-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-04-04_SA 2909 Certificate of Concurrence METC-ITCI Agreement to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160404-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA16-1-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Supplement to February 1, 2016 Arizona Public Service Company's Notice of Late System Impact Studies pursuant to Order 890 and 890-A.

    Filed Date: 3/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160328-5250.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08071 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status Frontier Windpower, LLC EG16-33-000 CPV Towantic, LLC EG16-34-000 CPV Valley, LLC EG16-35-000 Kingbird Solar A, LLC EG16-36-000 Kingbird Solar B, LLC EG16-37-000 Innovative Solar 43, LLC EG16-38-000 Bethel Wind Farm LLC EG16-39-000 Tenaska Pennsylvania Partners, LLC EG16-40-000 Horse Creek Wind, LLC EG16-41-000

    Take notice that during the month of March 2016, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08072 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-527-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed New York Bay Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this environmental assessment for the New York Bay Expansion Project (Project) proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket. Transco requests authorization to construct, replace, and operate natural gas pipeline facilities located in Chester County, Pennsylvania, Richmond County, New York, and Middlesex and Essex Counties, New Jersey. This Project would enable Transco to modify existing facilities and replace existing pipeline to transport an additional 115 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.

    The Project would involve the following activities at existing aboveground facilities in the specified towns and municipalities:

    • Uprate Compressor Station 200 from 30,860 horsepower (hp) to 33,000 hp (East Whiteland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania) and uprate a unit of Compressor Station 303 from 25,000 hp to 27,500 hp (Roseland Borough, Essex County, New Jersey);

    • Add 11,000 hp of electric-driven compression to Compressor Station 207 (Old Bridge Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey);

    • Install various appurtenances and modifications at three meter and regulation (M&R) stations in East Brandywine Township (Chester County, Pennsylvania), Sayreville Borough (Middlesex County, New Jersey) and Staten Island Borough (Richmond County, New York), including setting up a temporary M&R station during construction in Staten Island Borough.

    In addition, Transco proposes to replace three segments of its 42-inch-diameter Lower New York Bay Lateral pipeline, totaling 0.25 mile, and uprate the lateral pipeline's operating pressure from 960 to 1000 pounds per square inch in Middlesex County, New Jersey.

    The environmental assessment assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The environmental assessment has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Conference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Copies of the environmental assessment have been mailed to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; libraries in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding.

    Any person wishing to comment on the environmental assessment may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before May 4, 2016.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number (CP15-527-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-527). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected]rc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08070 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: CP16-102-000.

    Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.

    Description: Vector Pipeline L.P. Abbreviated Application to Abandon Firm Capacity by Lease.

    Filed Date: 3/11/2016.

    Accession Number: 20160311-5163.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/16.

    Docket Number: PR15-26-001.

    Applicants: Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e), (g): Rate Petition Amendment to be effective 4/1/2016; Filing Type: 1270.

    Filed Date: 3/29/2016.

    Accession Number: 201603295155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-33-000.

    Applicants: Salt Plains Storage, LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(e) + (g): Filing to Revise SOC to be effective 4/1/2016; Filing Type: 1280.

    Filed Date: 3/28/16.

    Accession Number: 201603285084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-34-000.

    Applicants: Enstor Katy Storage and Transportation, L.P.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(e)/.224: Revised Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 4/1/2016; Filing Type: 770.

    Filed Date: 3/28/16.

    Accession Number: 201603285135.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-35-000.

    Applicants: Enstor Grama Ridge Storage and Transportation, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(e)/.224: Revised Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 4/1/2016; Filing Type: 770.

    Filed Date: 3/28/16.

    Accession Number: 201603285136.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-36-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1)/.: 20160328_PSCo SOR GRSA PSIA to be effective 3/1/2016; Filing Type: 980.

    Filed Date: 3/28/16.

    Accession Number: 201603285188.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08069 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL16-53-000] Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. as Agent for Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on April 1, 2016, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2015), Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO or Respondent) requesting a refund effective date of April 1, 2016, as a protective measure in case refunds of certain Michigan Joint Zone revenues are necessary for charges assessed by the MISO in the latter's capacity as agent for Consumers Energy Company, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for MISO as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 21, 2016.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08073 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC11-41-001.

    Applicants: Varde Partners, L.P., Varde Management, L.P., Varde Management International, L.P., Granite Ridge Holding, LLC, Granite Ridge Energy, LLC.

    Description: Motion of Varde Partners, L.P., et. al. to terminate authorization previously granted.

    Filed Date: 3/22/16.

    Accession Number: 20160322-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-98-000.

    Applicants: Chubu Electric Power Company U.S.A. Inc., Tokyo Electric Power Company, Incorporation.

    Description: Application for Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Chubu Electric Power Company U.S.A. Inc. and Tokyo Electric Power Company, Incorporated.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5403.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-693-001.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-04-01 IPE 2015 Compliance Filing to be effective 3/8/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5317.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1018-001.

    Applicants: Guzman Renewable Energy Partners LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Market-Based Rate Tariff #1 Amendment to be effective 3/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5012.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1211-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-04-01_SA 2906 Amendment to Indianapolis Power & Light GIA (J401) to be effective 3/18/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1316-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Entergy Services, Inc., Amended Service Agreements to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5357.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1317-000.

    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment J—Municipal Underground Surcharge Revision to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5359.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1318-000.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions, Full Requirement Service Agreements, Attachment D to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5007.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1319-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: ESI Notice of Cancellation of SA 435-B to be effective 8/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5009.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1321-000.

    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: April 2016 Membership Filing to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1322-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-04-01_Entergy Merger Filing to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1323-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Annual Real Power Loss Factor Filing for 2016 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1324-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-04-01_RTOR Settlement Interim Rate Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1325-000.

    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 2, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Mesquite Solar 2, LLC Petition for Order Accepting Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/20/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5204.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1326-000.

    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 3, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Mesquite Solar 3, LLC Petition for Order Accepting Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/20/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1327-000.

    Applicants: Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC Petition for Order Accepting Market Based Rates to be effective 5/20/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1328-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: Application of Public Service Company of New Mexico for 2016 Transmission Formula Rate Post-Retirement Benefits Other than Pensions Expense under ER16-1328.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1329-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PacifiCorp Energy Construction Agmt—Granite Mountain Solar to be effective 3/28/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5276.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1330-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Construction Agreement for Don-Blackfoot 138 kV Thermal Relay to be effective 3/18/2016 .

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5291.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1331-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Revisions to Clarify the Process to Study Requests for Short-Term Service to be effective 5/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5303.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1332-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 217, Exhibit B.Bke-LIB to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5306.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1333-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., WPPI Energy.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-04-01_WPPI ATRR Recovery Filing to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5308.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1334-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-4-1_PSC-PRPA-LaPorte Const-414-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 4/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5322.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1335-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OA Schedule 6 section 1.5 re: Lower Voltage Facilities Threshold to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5324.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1336-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OATT Att. DD.10A re: Ramp Rate—CP Resource Performance to be effective 5/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5333.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1337-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-4-1_PSC-PRPA-LaPorte PPA 174 0.0.0-Filing to be effective 10/15/2010.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5335.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1338-000.

    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Normal 2016 to be effective 4/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160401-5362.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08067 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9026-4] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS; NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 03/28/2016 Through 04/01/2016 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20160070, Final, BLM, DC, Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States, Review Period Ends: 05/09/2016, Contact: Gina Ramos 202-912-7226. EIS No. 20160071, Draft Supplement, NIGC, CA, Jamul Indian Village, Comment Period Ends: 05/23/2016, Contact: John R. Hay 202-632-7003. EIS No. 20160072, Draft, USFS, CA, Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project, Comment Period Ends: 05/23/2016, Contact: ODell Tucker 559-539-2607 ext. 213. EIS No. 20160073, Second Draft Supplemental, USFS, WY, Oil and Gas Leasing in Portions of the Wyoming Range in the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Comment Period Ends: 05/23/2016, Contact: Donald Kranendonk 435-781-5245. Amended Notices EIS No. 20160074, Final, GSA, DC, ADOPTION—Department of Homeland Security Headquarters at the St. Elizabeth West Campus to Consolidate Federal Office Space on a Secure Site, Contact: Jennifer Hass 202-834-4346 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has adopted the General Services Administration's Final EIS # 20080452, filed with the USEPA on 11/07/2008. DHS was a cooperating agency for this project. Recirculation of the document is not necessary in accordance with Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ Regulations. EIS No. 20160075, Final, GSA, DC, ADOPTION—Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation at St. Elizabeths Master Plan Amendment—East Campus North Parcel St. Elizabeths Campus, Contact: Jennifer Hass 202-834-4346. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has adopted the General Services Administration's Final EIS #20120049, filed with the USEPA on 03/02/2012. DHS was a cooperating agency for this project. Recirculation of the document is not necessary in accordance with Section 1506.3(c) of CEQ Regulations. Dated: April 5, 2016. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08139 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9943-98-OARM; DOCKET NO. FIFRA-HQ-2016-0001] Flubendiamide; Notice of Intent To Cancel Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of objections filed and hearing requested; Notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Section 6 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136d, and Section 164.8 of the associated Rules of Practice Governing Hearings set forth at 40 CFR part 164, that objections were filed and a hearing was requested in response to the Notice of Intent to Cancel Pesticide Registrations, published in the Federal Register on March 04, 2016, 81 FR 11558.

    This proceeding has been assigned Docket No. FIFRA-HQ-2016-0001, In the Matter of Bayer CropScience LP and Nichino America Inc., and the undersigned has been designated to preside. A hearing on the objections filed will be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice set forth at 40 CFR part 164.

    DATES:

    The hearing in this matter will be held beginning promptly at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, and continue as necessary through Friday, May 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA Administrative Courtroom, EPA East Building, Room 1152, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    An electronic copy of the case file in this proceeding is publically available online at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/alj/alj_web_docket.nsf. The official case file is available for public inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, in the office of the Hearing Clerk, located in Room M1200 of the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Susan L. Biro, Chief Administrative Law Judge.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08157 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0021; FRL-9944-58] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for February 2016 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from February 1, 2016 to February 29, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-2016-0021, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, IMD 7407M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-8593; email address: [email protected].

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

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 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. 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. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from February 1, 2016 to February 29, 2016, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

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

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic reports on the status of new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the 37 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

    Table 1—PMNs Received From February 1, 2016 to February 29, 2016 Case No. Received
  • date
  • Projected
  • notice end
  • date
  • Manufacturer
  • importer
  • Use Chemical
    P-16-0044 2/19/2016 5/19/2016 CBI (G) Industrial coating (G) Benzenedicarboxylic acid, polymer with alkanedioic acid, alkanediol, alkoxylated alcohol and aromatic isocyanate. P-16-0054 2/19/2016 5/19/2016 CBI (S) Metal working fluid component (S) Phosphoric acid, mixed 2-hexlydecyl and 2-hexyldodecyl and 2-octyldecyl and 2-octyldodecyl mono- and diesters. P-16-0093 2/23/2016 5/23/2016 CBI (G) Ingredient for consumer products (S) 2-cyclohexen-1-one, 2-methyl-5-propyl- P-16-0137 2/2/2016 5/2/2016 H.B. Fuller Company (G) Industrial adhesive (S) Dicarboxylic acid polymers with alkane diols and e23. P-16-0138 2/2/2016 5/2/2016 H.B. Fuller Company (G) Industrial adhesive (S) Dicarboxylic acid polymers with alkane diols and e23. P-16-0165 2/19/2016 5/19/2016 Dura Chemicals, Inc (S) Ferrous propionate is a component in a metal organic product that will be used in paint and ink driers, upr promoters, lube/grease additives, fuel additives, polymerization catalysts, specialty petrochemical catalysts, etc. the amount of the ferrous propionate will be well under 1% in any final product (S) Propanoic acid, iron (2+) salt (2:1). P-16-0177 2/12/2016 5/12/2016 CBI (G) Glass coating (G) Mixed metal oxides. P-16-0186 2/18/2016 5/18/2016 CBI (G) Surfactant (G) Sodium branched chain alkyl hydroxyl and branched chain alkenyl sulfonates. P-16-0200 2/2/2016 5/2/2016 Chitec Technology Co., Ltd (G) Component of Inks (S) 1-propanone, 1-[1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl-2-methyl-2-(4-morpholinyl)- P-16-0201 2/12/2016 5/12/2016 CBI (G) Adhesive Additive (G) Triethoxysilyl polyurethane alkylpolyether. P-16-0202 2/5/2016 5/5/2016 CBI (G) Separation Material (G) Modified styrenic polymer (strongly and weakly basic anion exchange resin type). P-16-0203 2/8/2016 5/8/2016 CBI (S) Polyurethane catalyst (G) Pentanoic acid, compd. with polyalkylpolyamine. P-16-0206 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (G) Pigment wetting and dispersing additive (G) Formaldehyde ketone condensate polymer. P-16-0207 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (G) Additive for electrolyte solution (G) Spiro tetrafluoroborate. P-16-0208 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (S) Colorant used in plastic manufacturing/recycling (S) Carbon, calcination products with sulfur. P-16-0208 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (S) Media for water filtration devices (S) Carbon, calcination products with sulfur. P-16-0209 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (G) Coating component (G) Polymer of methylenebis[isocyantobenzene], polyether polyol, alkanepolycarboxylic acid and alkanepolyol. P-16-0210 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (G) Coating component (G) Alkanepolycarboxylic acids, polymer with alkanepolyols, benzenedicarboxylic acid, methylenebis[isocyantobenzene], mono- and polyether polyols, benzenedicarboxylic acid derivative and caprolactone. P-16-0211 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (G) Coating component (G) Polymer of alkyl acrylate, caprolactone, methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], alkyl methacrylates, polyether polyol, alkanepolycarboxylic acid, substituted methacrylate and alkanepolyol. P-16-0212 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (G) Coating component (G) Polymer of alkanepolyols, methylenebis[isocyantobenzene], polyether polyol, alkyl methacrylates and acrylate, methacrylic acid, substitued methacrylic acid and alkanepolycarboxylic acid. P-16-0213 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Polymer of substituted benzenes, alkanepolyols, alkanepolycarboxylic acids, methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], polyether polyol, neopentyl glycol and a substituted glycol. P-16-0214 2/10/2016 5/10/2016 CBI (G) Coating component (G) Polyether polyols, polymers with substituted benzenes, methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], alkanepolyols, caprolactone and a substituted glycol. P-16-0215 2/12/2016 5/12/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Propyl silsesquioxanes, hydrogen-terminated. P-16-0216 2/16/2016 5/16/2016 CBI (G) Plastic additive (G) Organic modified propyl silsesquioxane. P-16-0217 2/15/2016 5/15/2016 CBI (G) Processing aid for ground mineral slurries (open, non dispersive use) (G) Alkenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1), mixed salt. P-16-0220 2/16/2016 5/16/2016 Allnex USA Inc (S) Radiation Curing Coating Resin (G) Alkanedioic acid, polymer with alkanediol, bis[substituted [(alkyl-oxo-alkenyl)oxy]alkyl] ester. P-16-0221 2/19/2016 5/19/2016 CBI (S) Coating agent (G) Fluorinated organopolysilazane. P-16-0222 2/19/2016 5/19/2016 Allnex USA Inc (S) Radiation curing coating resin (G) Alkanedioic acid, polymer with substituted heteromonocycle, ??-hydro-??-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) ether with substituted alkanediol and substituted bis[carbomonocycle], alkanoate. P-16-0223 2/19/2016 5/19/2016 CBI (G) Emulsion base (G) Wax. P-16-0224 2/19/2016 5/19/2016 CBI (G) Emulsifier additive (G) Carbomonocyclic acid anhydride, polymers with polyethylene glycol, succinic anhydride monoalkenyl derivs. and succinic anhydride monopolyisobutylene derivs., esters with polyethylene glycol monoalkyl ethers. P-16-0225 2/23/2016 5/23/2016 International Flavors & Fragrances Inc (S) The notified substance will be used as a fragrance ingredient, being blended (mixed) with other fragrance ingredients to make fragrance oils that will be sold to industrial and commercial customers for their incorporation into soaps, detergents, cleaners, air fresheners, candles and other similar industrial, household and consumer products (S) Isomer mixture of cyclohexanol, 4-ethylidene-2-propoxy- (CAS 1631145-48-6) (35-45%) and cyclohexanol, 5-ethylidene-2-propoxy (CAS 1631145-49-7) (45-55%). P-16-0227 2/23/2016 5/23/2016 CBI (G) Adhesive component (G) Cashew nutshell liquid, polymer with diisocyanatoalkane, substituted, substituted-polyoxyalkyldiyl, hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene and 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene)bis[2-(2-propen-1-yl)phenol]. P-16-0228 2/24/2016 5/24/2016 CBI (G) ProcessingaAid (G) Derivative of a glycerol, alkanoic acid and mixed fatty acids polymer. P-16-0229 2/24/2016 5/24/2016 CBI (S) Industrial intermediate (G) N-methyl- (amino, chloro, methyl) carbomonocylcic carbamide. P-16-0230 2/25/2016 5/25/2016 CBI (G) Photolithography (G) Hydroxystyrene resin. P-16-0231 2/25/2016 5/25/2016 Wacker Chemical Corporation (G) Functional polymer used in industrial/commercial sealants, adhesives and coatings (G) Polysiloxane with functional groups. P-16-0235 2/29/2016 5/29/2016 CBI (S) Construction adhesive (G) Polymeric methylene diphenyldiisocyanate, polymer with oxyalkyl diol, methacrylate blocked.

    For the 25 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 3 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA Case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.

    Table 2—NOCs Received from February 1, 2016 to February 29, 2016 Case No. Received
  • date
  • Commencement
  • date
  • Chemical
    P-05-0666 2/15/2016 11/5/2003 (S) Poly[oxy (methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], alpha, alpha′, alpha″-1,2,3-propanetriyltris [omega-hydroxy-, polymer with alpha-hydro-omega hydroxypoly [oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], 5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatomethyl )-1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexane and 1,1′-methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene ]. P-07-0564 2/15/2016 1/20/2016 (S) Fatty acid c18-unsatd, polymers with diethylenetriamine and maleic anhydride. P-13-0338 2/1/2016 1/27/2016 (S) Hexanedioic acid, polymer with 1,6-hexanediol and 1-isocyanato-2-[(4-isocyanatophenyl)methyl]benzene. P-14-0300 2/19/2016 12/8/2015 (G) Substituted polysiloxane. P-14-0324 2/17/2016 2/15/2016 (G) Fatty ester derivatives, reaction products with alkanolamine, hydroxylated, borated. P-14-0665 2/11/2016 1/14/2016 (S) Benzoic acid, 4-(benzoylamino)-. P-14-0750 2/19/2016 1/20/2016 (G) Formic acid salts, compds. with epoxy-cycloalkylamine-polymer-hydrolyzed amino-1,2-alkanediamine-(alkylamino)alcohol reaction products. P-15-0295 2/15/2016 2/10/2016 (G) Hydrocarbon ester acrylate modified particle. P-15-0440 2/4/2016 2/1/2016 (G) Hetero substituted alkyl acrylate polymer. P-15-0485 2/4/2016 1/20/2016 (G) Bismuth compound. P-15-0503 2/8/2016 12/9/2015 (S) 2-oxepanone, polymer with 1,4-diisocyanatobenzene, 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol and 2,2′-[1,4-phenylenebis(oxy)]bis[ethanol]. P-15-0596 2/19/2016 11/16/2015 (G) Methyl alkaryl methyl hygrogen cyclosiloxanes. P-15-0637 2/26/2016 2/25/2016 (S) Cyclopropanemethanol, a,1-dimethyl-2-(1-phenylethyl)-. P-15-0702 2/1/2016 1/27/2016 (G) Modified polyethyleneglycol diacrylate salt with acidic polyethylene ester. P-15-0710 2/16/2016 1/19/2016 (G) Carboxylic acid polymer ester with alpha-methyl-omega-hydroxypoly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl). P-15-0728 2/26/2016 2/25/2016 (S) Benzenemethanol, 3-ethoxy-4-hydroxy. P-15-0759 2/18/2016 1/26/2016 (S) Carbonic acid, dimethyl ester, polymer with bis(isocyanatomethyl)cyclohexane and 1,6-hexanediol. P-15-0768 2/8/2016 2/4/2016 (G) Alkanedial, polymer with alkyleneurea and alkyl-alkanediol. P-16-0018 2/10/2016 2/9/2016 (G) Polyethyleneglycol modified polyacrylate, compd. with alcohol amine. P-16-0019 2/10/2016 2/9/2016 (G) Polyethyleneglycol modified polyacrylate, compd. with alcohol amine. P-16-0023 2/5/2016 2/2/2016 (G) 2-propenenitrile, reaction products with polyalkylenepolyamine, hydrogenated. P-16-0024 2/19/2016 1/12/2016 (G) Alkylamine—modifided silane. P-16-0039 2/19/2016 2/16/2016 (G) Alkyl acrylate-alkyl acrylamide copolymer. P-16-0049 2/24/2016 2/12/2016 (G) High oleic algae oil ethoxylate. P-16-0050 2/24/2016 2/12/2016 (G) High lauric algae oil ethoxylate s2014.
    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: April 4, 2016. Megan Carroll, Acting Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08135 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice 2016-3017] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    New Submission for OMB review and Final comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 15-04 Exporter's Certificate for Co-Financed Loan, Guarantee & MT Insurance Programs.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Ex-Im Bank's borrowers, financial institution policy holders and guaranteed lenders provide this form to U.S. exporters, who certify to the eligibility of their exports for Ex-Im Bank support. For direct loans and loan guarantees, the completed form is required to be submitted at time of disbursement and held by either the guaranteed lender or Ex-Im Bank. For MT insurance, the completed forms are held by the financial institution, only to be submitted to Ex-Im Bank in the event of a claim filing.

    Ex-Im Bank uses the referenced form to obtain exporter certifications regarding the export transaction, content sourcing, and their eligibility to participate in USG programs with respect to co-financed transactions. These details are necessary to determine the value and legitimacy of Ex-Im Bank financing support and claims submitted. It also provides the financial institutions a check on the export transaction's eligibility at the time it is fulfilling a financing request.

    The information collection tool can be reviewed at: http://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib15-04.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV or by mail to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20038 Attn: OMB 3048-00XX EIB15-04.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and Form Number: EIB 15-04 Exporter's Certificate for Co-Financed Loan, Guarantee & MT Insurance Programs.

    OMB Number: 3048-00XX.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Need and Use: The information collected will allow Ex-Im Bank to determine compliance and content for transaction requests submitted to Ex-Im Bank under its co-financed insurance, guarantee, and direct loan programs.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 30.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 15 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: As required.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing time per year: 0.5 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year (time*wages): $21.25.

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $25.5.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Program Analyst, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08088 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 25, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Andrew Charles Heaner, Atlanta, Georgia; to acquire additional voting shares of Heritage First Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Heritage First Bank, both in Rome, Georgia.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. The Margaret March Brownlee Trust, Margaret M. Brownlee, trustee, Orlando, Florida; the Paula March Romanovsky Trust, Paula March Romanovsky, trustee, San Francisco, California; the Crotty Brownlee Family Charitable Remainder Trust, Margaret M. Brownlee, trustee, Orlando, Florida; the Paula March Romanovsky Trust, Paula March Romanovsky, trustee, San Francisco, California; and the Crotty Brownlee Family Charitable Remainder Trust, Margaret M. Brownlee, trustee, Orlando, Florida; all as members of the March family group; to retain voting shares of Bank Management, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of FirstBank of Nebraska, both in Wahoo, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 5, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08104 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan 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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 5, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Belpre Bancorp, Belpre, Ohio; to acquire Belpre Savings Bank, Belpre, Ohio, and reorganize into a mutual holding company structure.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 5, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08103 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0297]; [Docket No. 2016-0001; Sequence 3] Information Collection; General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (GSA) AGENCY:

    General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0297, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “Information Collection 3090-0297, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0297, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0297” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. Attn: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0297, Generic Clearance.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-0297, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Anahita Reilly, Customer Advocate Executive, Office of Customer Experience, GSA, 202-714-9421, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

    This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance.

    Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study.

    Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results. The Digital Government Strategy released by the White House in May, 2012 drives agencies to have a more customer-centric focus. Because of this, GSA anticipates an increase in requests to use this generic clearance, as the plan states that: A customer-centric principle charges us to do several things: Conduct research to understand the customer's business, needs and desires; “make content more broadly available and accessible and present it through multiple channels in a program-and device-agnostic way; make content more accurate and understandable by maintaining plain language and content freshness standards; and offer easy paths for feedback to ensure we continually improve service delivery.

    The customer-centric principle holds true whether our customers are internal (e.g., the civilian and military federal workforce in both classified and unclassified environments) or external (e.g., individual citizens, businesses, research organizations, and state, local, and tribal governments).”

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 160,082.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Total Annual Responses: 160,082.

    Hours per response: 3.8386 minutes.

    Total Burden hours: 10,241.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0297, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, in all correspondence.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. David A. Shive, Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08145 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0283; Docket 2015-0001; Sequence 16] Submission for OMB Review; Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850 AGENCY:

    Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM) Division, Office of Security, Office of Mission Assurance (OMA), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a previously approved information collection requirement, with changes, expanding the coverage of the information collection of the Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850.

    GSA requires OMB approval for this collection to make determinations on granting unescorted physical access to GSA-controlled facilities and/or logical access to GSA-controlled information systems. The approval is critical for GSA to continue following contractor onboarding processes required for working on GSA contracts. An updated System of Record Notice (SORN) was published in the Federal Register at 79 FR 47139, on August 12, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 75864 on December 4, 2015. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0283, Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0283, Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0283, Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-0283, Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Phil Ahn, Deputy Director, OMA Identity Credential and Access Management Division, GSA, telephone 202-501-2447 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The U.S. Government conducts criminal checks to establish that applicants or incumbents working for the Government under contract may have unescorted access to federally controlled facilities. GSA uses the Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850, and digitally captured fingerprints to conduct a FBI National Criminal Information Check (NCIC) for each contractor's physical access determination to GSA-controlled facilities and/or logical access to GSA-controlled information systems. Manual fingerprint card SF-87 is used for exception cases such as contractor's significant geographical distance from fingerprint enrollment sites.

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance M-05-24 for Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, authorizes Federal departments and agencies to ensure that contractors have limited/controlled access to facilities and information systems. GSA Directive CIO P 2181.1 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12, Personal Identity Verification and Credentialing (available at http://www.gsa.gov/hspd12), states that GSA contractors must undergo a minimum of an FBI National Criminal Information Check (NCIC) to receive unescorted physical access to GSA-controlled facilities and/or logical access to GSA-controlled information systems.

    Contractors' Social Security Number is needed to keep records accurate, because other people may have the same name and birth date. Executive Order 9397, Numbering System for Federal Accounts Relating to Individual Persons, also allows Federal agencies to use this number to help identify individuals in agency records.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 25,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Total Annual Responses: 25,000.

    Hours per Response: .25.

    Total Burden Hours: 6,250.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0283, Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850 in all correspondence. The form can be downloaded from the GSA Forms Library at http://www.gsa.gov/forms. Type GSA 850 in the form search field.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. David A. Shive, Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08146 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Comparative Database.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by June 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Project Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Comparative Database

    In 1999, the Institute of Medicine called for health care organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that their workforce and processes focus on improving the reliability and safety of care for patients (IOM, 1999; To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System). To respond to the need for tools to assess patient safety culture in health care, AHRQ developed and pilot tested the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture with OMB approval (OMB NO. 0935-0115; Approved 2/4/2003).

    The survey is designed to enable hospitals to assess staff opinions about patient safety issues, medical errors, and error reporting. The survey includes 42 items that measure 12 composites of patient safety culture. AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide and other toolkit materials in November 2004 on the AHRQ Web site (located at http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patientsafetyculture/hospital/index.html). Since its release, the survey has been voluntarily used by hundreds of hospitals in the U.S.

    The Hospital SOPS Comparative Database consists of data from the AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Hospitals in the U.S. are asked to voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ, through its contractor, Westat. The Hospital SOPS Database (OMB NO. 0935-0162, last approved on September 26, 2013) was developed by AHRQ in 2006 in response to requests from hospitals interested in knowing how their patient safety culture survey results compare to those of other hospitals in their efforts to improve patient safety.

    Rationale for the information collection. The Hospital SOPS and the Comparative Database support AHRQ's goals of promoting improvements in the quality and safety of health care in hospital settings. The survey, toolkit materials, and comparative database results are all made publicly available on AHRQ's Web site. Technical assistance is provided by AHRQ through its contractor at no charge to hospitals, to facilitate the use of these materials for hospital patient safety and quality improvement.

    Request for information collection approval. AHRQ requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reapprove, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, AHRQ's collection of information for the AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (Hospital SOPS) Comparative Database; OMB NO. 0935-0162, last approved on September 26, 2013.

    This database will:

    (1) Allow hospitals to compare their patient safety culture survey results with those of other hospitals,

    (2) provide data to hospitals to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process, and

    (3) provide supplemental information to help hospitals identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.

    This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

    Method of Collection

    To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:

    (1) Eligibility and Registration Form—The hospital point-of-contact (POC) completes a number of data submission steps and forms, beginning with the completion of an online eligibility and registration form. The purpose of this form is to determine the eligibility status and initiate the registration process for hospitals seeking to voluntarily submit their Hospital SOPS data to the Hospital SOPS Comparative Database.

    (2) Data Use Agreement—The purpose of the data use agreement, completed by the hospital POC, is to state how data submitted by hospitals will be used and provides confidentiality assurances.

    (3) Hospital Site Information Form—The purpose of the site information form is to obtain basic information about the characteristics of the hospitals submitting their Hospital SOPS data to the Hospital SOPS Comparative Database (e.g. number of providers and staff, ownership, and teaching status). The hospital POC completes the form.

    (4) Data Files Submission—The number of submissions to the database is likely to vary each year because hospitals do not administer the survey and submit data every year. Data submission is typically handled by one POC who is either a manager or a survey vendor who contracts with a hospital to collect its data. POCs submit data on behalf of 3 hospitals, on average, because many hospitals are part of a health system that includes many hospitals, or the POC is a vendor that is submitting data for multiple hospitals.

    Survey data from the AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture is used to produce three types of products: (1) A Hospital SOPS Comparative Database Report that is produced periodically and made publicly available on the AHRQ Web site (see http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patientsafetyculture/hospital/hosp-reports.html); (2) Individual Hospital Survey Feedback Reports which are confidential, customized reports produced for each hospital that submits data to the database (the number of reports produced is based on the number of hospitals submitting each year); and (3) Research data sets of individual-level and hospital-level de-identified data to enable researchers to conduct analyses.

    Hospitals are asked to voluntarily submit their Hospital SOPS survey data to the comparative database. The data are then cleaned and aggregated and used to produce a Comparative Database Report that displays averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 42 items and 12 composites of patient safety culture, as well as displaying these results by hospital characteristics (bed size, teaching status, ownership) and respondent characteristics (hospital work area, staff position, and those with direct interaction with patients). In addition, trend data, showing changes in scores over time, are presented from hospitals that have submitted to the database more than once.

    Data submitted by hospitals are used to give each hospital its own customized survey feedback report that presents the hospital's results compared to the latest comparative database results. If the hospital submits data in two consecutive database submission years, its survey feedback report also presents trend data, comparing its previous and most recent data.

    Hospitals use the Hospital SOPS, Comparative Database Reports and Individual Hospital Survey Feedback Reports for a number of purposes, to:

    • Raise staff awareness about patient safety.

    • Diagnose and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their hospital.

    • Identify strengths and areas for improvement in patient safety culture.

    • Examine trends in patient safety culture change over time.

    • Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions.

    • Facilitate meeting Joint Commission hospital accreditation standards in Leadership that require a regular assessment of hospital patient safety culture.

    • Compare patient safety culture survey results with other hospitals in their efforts to improve patient safety and quality.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. An estimated 304 POCs, each representing an average of 3 individual hospitals each, will complete the database submission steps and forms annually. The POCs typically submit data on behalf of 3 hospitals, on average, because many hospitals are part of a multi-hospital system that is submitting data, or the POC is a vendor that is submitting data for multiple hospitals. Completing the registration form will take about 3 minutes. The Hospital Information Form is completed by all POCs for each of their hospitals (304 × 3 = 912). The total annual burden hours are estimated to be 410.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $21,801 annually.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents/
  • POCs
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per POC
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Eligibility/Registration Form 304 1 3/60 15 Data Use Agreement 304 1 3/60 15 Hospital Information Form 304 3 5/60 76 Data Files Submission 304 1 1 304 Total 1,216 NA NA 410
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form Name Number of
  • respondents/
  • POCs
  • Total burden hours Average
  • hourly
  • wage rate*
  • Total
  • cost burden
  • Eligibility/Registration Form 304 15 $53.17 $798 Data Use Agreement 304 15 53.17 798 Hospital Information Form 304 76 53.17 4,041 Data Files Submission 304 304 53.17 16,164 Total 1,216 410 NA 21,801 * Wage rates were calculated using the mean hourly wage based on occupational employment and wage estimates from the Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2014 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates NAICS 622000—Hospitals, located at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_622000.htm. Wage rate of $53.17 is based on the mean hourly wages for Medical and Health Services Managers (11-9111).
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08020 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Common Formats for Reporting on Health Care Quality and Patient Safety AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability—new common formats.

    SUMMARY:

    As authorized by the Secretary of HHS, AHRQ coordinates the development of sets of common definitions and reporting formats (Common Formats) for reporting on health care quality and patient safety. The purpose of this notice is to announce the availability of new formats for public review and comment, Common Formats for Event Reporting for Hospitals Version 2.0.

    DATES:

    May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Common Formats for Event Reporting for Hospitals Version 2.0, and the remaining Common Formats, can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site: http://www.pso.ahrq.gov/common/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathryn Bach, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008, (73 FR 70732-70814), provide for the formation of Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), which collect, aggregate, and analyze confidential information regarding the quality and safety of health care delivery. The collection of patient safety work product allows the aggregation of data that help to identify and address underlying causal factors of patient quality and safety problems.

    The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule establish a framework by which doctors, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other health care providers may assemble information regarding patient safety events and quality of care. Information that is assembled and developed by providers for reporting to PSOs and the information received and analyzed by PSOs—called “patient safety work product”—is privileged and confidential. Patient safety work product is used to conduct patient safety activities, which may include identifying events, patterns of care, and unsafe conditions that increase risks and hazards to patients. Definitions and other details about PSOs and patient safety work product are included in the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule which can be accessed electronically at: http://www.pso.ahrq.gov/legislation/.

    Definition of Common Formats

    The term “Common Formats” refers to the common definitions and reporting formats, specified by AHRQ, that allow health care providers to collect and submit standardized information regarding patient quality and safety to PSOs and other entities. The formats are not intended to replace any current mandatory reporting system, collaborative/voluntary reporting system, research-related reporting system, or other reporting/recording system; rather the formats are intended to enhance the ability of health care providers to report information that is standardized both clinically and electronically.

    In collaboration with the interagency Federal Patient Safety Workgroup (PSWG), the National Quality Forum (NQF), and the public, AHRQ has developed Common Formats for three settings of care—acute care hospitals, nursing homes, and retail pharmacies—in order to facilitate standardized data collection and analysis. The scope of the formats applies to all patient safety concerns including: Incidents—patient safety events that reached the patient, whether or not there was harm; near misses or close calls—patient safety events that did not reach the patient; and unsafe conditions—circumstances that increase the probability of a patient safety event.

    AHRQ's Common Formats for patient safety event reporting include:

    • Event descriptions (definitions of patient safety events, near misses, and unsafe conditions to be reported);

    • Specifications for patient safety aggregate reports and individual event summaries that derive from event descriptions;

    • Delineation of data elements and algorithms to be used for collection of adverse event data to populate the reports; and

    • Technical specifications for electronic data collection and reporting.

    The technical specifications promote standardization of collected patient safety event information by specifying rules for data collection and submission, as well as by providing guidance for how and when to create data elements, their valid values, conditional and go-to logic, and reports. These specifications will ensure that data collected by PSOs and other entities have comparable clinical meaning. They also provide direction to software developers, so that the formats can be implemented electronically, and to PSOs, so that the Common Formats can be submitted electronically to the PSO Privacy Protection Center (PSOPPC) for data de-identification and transmission to the Network of Patient Safety Databases (NPSD).

    Common Formats Development

    In anticipation of the need for Common Formats, AHRQ began their development by creating an inventory of functioning private and public sector patient safety reporting systems. This inventory provided an evidence base to inform construction of the Common Formats. The inventory included many systems from the private sector, including prominent academic settings, hospital systems, and international reporting systems (e.g., from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Australia). In addition, virtually all major Federal patient safety reporting systems were included, such as those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

    Since February 2005, AHRQ has convened the PSWG to assist AHRQ with developing and maintaining the Common Formats. The PSWG includes major health agencies within HHS—CDC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, FDA, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Office of Public Health and Science, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration—as well as the DoD and VA.

    When developing Common Formats, AHRQ first reviews existing patient safety practices and event reporting systems. In collaboration with the PSWG and Federal subject matter experts, AHRQ drafts and releases beta versions and updates to current versions of the Common Formats for public review and comment. The prior version of Common Formats for Event Reporting for Hospitals, Version 1.2, was released in April 2013. The PSWG assists AHRQ with assuring the consistency of definitions/formats with those of relevant government agencies as refinement of the Common Formats continues.

    Since the initial release of the Common Formats in August 2008, AHRQ has regularly revised the formats based upon public comment. AHRQ solicits feedback on beta, and subsequent, versions of Common Formats from private sector organizations and individuals. Based upon the feedback received, AHRQ further revises the formats. To the extent practicable, the Common Formats are also aligned with World Health Organization (WHO) concepts, frameworks, and definitions.

    Participation by the private sector in the development and subsequent revision of the Common Formats is achieved through working with the NQF. The Agency engages the NQF, a non-profit organization focused on health care quality, to solicit comments and advice regarding proposed versions of the Common Formats. AHRQ began this process with the NQF in 2008, receiving feedback on AHRQ's 0.1 Beta release of the Common Formats for Event Reporting—Hospital. After receiving public comment, the NQF solicits the review and advice of its Common Formats Expert Panel and subsequently provides feedback to AHRQ. The Agency then revises and refines the Common Formats and issues them as a production version. AHRQ has continued to employ this process for all subsequent versions of the formats.

    Commenting on Common Formats for Event Reporting—Hospital Version 2.0

    AHRQ used a tiered approach to develop Hospital Version 2.0. This approach was done in response to feedback from PSOs and the public to decrease the number of questions for each module of the formats in order to reduce the burden on health care providers and to facilitate data transmission. These formats have two tiers, or data sets. The first tier, or national data set, contains elements that are collected for submission to the PSOPPC. The second tier, or local data set, is optional and is designed for use at the local level for additional analyses. This local data set is not meant for transmission to the PSOPPC.

    The Agency is specifically interested in obtaining feedback from both the private and public sectors on the updated Common Formats for Event Reporting—Hospitals Version 2.0. At this time, only the event descriptions—which define adverse events of interest in the inpatient hospital setting—are available. Other elements of the Common Formats, including aggregate reports and technical specifications, will be developed following revision of the Common Formats for Hospital Version 2.0 based on public comment and NQF advice. Information on how to comment and provide feedback on the Common Formats for Hospital Version 2.0 is available at the NQF Web site: http://www.qualityforum.org/Project_Pages/Common_Formats_for_Patient_Safety_Data.aspx.

    AHRQ appreciates the time and effort individuals invest in providing comments. The Agency will review and consider all feedback received to help guide the development of a revised version. The process for updating and refining the formats will continue to be an iterative one.

    Further information on the Common Formats can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site: http://www.pso.ahrq.gov/. To receive notifications about final versions of AHRQ Common Formats, please subscribe to “E-Mail Updates” at: https://pso.ahrq.gov/about/subscribe.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08021 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-317, CMS-319, CMS-10166, CMS-10178, and CMS-10184] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-317 State Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control Sampling Plan CMS-319 State Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control Sample Selection Lists CMS-10166 Payment Error Rate Measurement in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program CMS-10178 Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP) Managed Care CMS-10184 Payment Error Rate Measurement—State Medicaid and SCHIP Eligibility

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: State Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) Sample Plans; Use: The Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) system is based on monthly State reviews of Medicaid and Medicaid expansion under Title XXI cases by States performing the traditional sampling process identified through statistically reliable statewide samples of cases selected from the eligibility files. These reviews are conducted to determine whether or not the sampled cases meet applicable State Title XIX or XXI eligibility requirements when applicable. The reviews are also used to assess beneficiary liability, if any, and to determine the amounts paid to provide Medicaid services for these cases. In the MEQC system, sampling is the only practical method of validating eligibility of the total caseload and determining the dollar value of eligibility liability errors. Any attempt to make such validations and determinations by reviewing every case would be an enormous and unwieldy undertaking. In 1993, CMS implemented MEQC pilots in which States could focus on special studies, targeted populations, geographic areas or other forms of oversight with CMS approval. States must submit a sampling plan, or pilot proposal to be approved by CMS before implementing their pilot program. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) was enacted February 4, 2009. Sections 203 and 601 of the CHIPRA relate to MEQC. Section 203 of the CHIPRA establishes an error rate measurement with respect to the enrollment of children under the express lane eligibility option. The law directs States not to include children enrolled using the express lane eligibility option in data or samples used for purposes of complying with the MEQC requirements. Section 601 of the CHIPRA, among other things, requires a new final rule for the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program and aims to harmonize the PERM and MEQC programs and provides States with the option to apply PERM data resulting from its eligibility reviews for meeting MEQC requirements and vice versa, with certain conditions. We review, either directly or through its contractors, of the sampling plans helps to ensure States are using valid statistical methods for sample selection. The collection of information is also necessary to implement provisions from the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) (Pub. L. 111-3) with regard to the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) and Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) programs. Form Number: CMS-317 (OMB control number: 0938-0146); Frequency: Semi-Annually Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 10; Total Annual Responses: 20; Total Annual Hours: 480. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: State Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) Sample Selection Lists; Use: The MEQC system is based on monthly State reviews of Medicaid and Medicaid expansion under Title XXI cases by States performing the traditional sampling process identified through statistically reliable statewide samples of cases selected from the eligibility files. These reviews are conducted to determine whether or not the sampled cases meet applicable State Title XIX or XXI eligibility requirements when applicable. The reviews are also used to assess beneficiary liability, if any, and to determine the amounts paid to provide Medicaid services for these cases. In the MEQC system, sampling is the only practical method of validating eligibility of the total caseload and determining the dollar value of eligibility liability errors. Any attempt to make such validations and determinations by reviewing every case would be an enormous and unwieldy undertaking. At the beginning of each month, State agencies still performing the traditional sample are required to submit sample selection lists which identify all of the cases selected for review in the States' samples. The sample selection lists contain identifying information on Medicaid beneficiaries such as: State agency review number, beneficiary's name and address, the name of the county where the beneficiary resides, Medicaid case number, etc. The submittal of the sample selection lists is necessary for Regional Office validation of State reviews. Without these lists, the integrity of the sampling results would be suspect and the Regional Offices would have no data on the adequacy of the States' monthly sample draw or review completion status. The authority for collecting this information is Section 1903(u) of the Social Security Act. The specific requirement for submitting sample selection lists is described in regulations at 42 CFR 431.814(h). Regional Office staff review the sample selection lists to determine that States are sampling a sufficient number of cases for review. Form Number: CMS-319 (OMB control number: 0938-0147); Frequency: Monthly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 10; Total Annual Responses: 120; Total Annual Hours: 960. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Payment Error Rate Measurement in Medicaid & Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Use: The Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002 as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA) of 2012 requires CMS to produce national error rates for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To comply with the IPIA, CMS will engage a Federal contractor to produce the error rates in Medicaid and CHIP. The error rates for Medicaid and CHIP are calculated based on the reviews on three components of both Medicaid and CHIP program. They are: Fee-for-service claims medical reviews and data processing reviews, managed care claims data-processing reviews, and eligibility reviews. Each of the review components collects different types of information, and the state-specific error rates for each of the review components will be used to calculate an overall state-specific error rate, and the individual state-specific error rates will be used to produce a national error rate for Medicaid and CHIP. The states will be requested to submit, at their option, test data which include full claims details to the contractor prior to the quarterly submissions to detect potential problems in the dataset to and ensure the quality of the data. These states will be required to submit quarterly claims data to the contractor who will pull a statistically valid random sample, each quarter, by strata, so that medical and data processing reviews can be performed. State-specific error rates will be based on these review results. We need to collect the fee-for-service claims data, medical policies, and other information from states as well as medical records from providers in order for the contractor to sample and review adjudicated claims in those states selected for medical reviews and data processing reviews. Based on the reviews, state-specific error rates will be calculated which will serve as part of the basis for calculating national Medicaid and CHIP error rates. Form Number: CMS-10166 (OMB control number: 0938-0974); Frequency: Annually, Quarterly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 34; Total Annual Responses: 34; Total Annual Hours: 56,100. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    4. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance (CHIP) Managed Care Claims and Related Information; Use: The Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program measures improper payments for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The program was designed to comply with the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Although OMB guidance requires error rate measurement for SCHIP, 2009 SCHIP legislation temporarily suspended PERM measurement for this program and changed to Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) effective April 01, 2009. See Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) Public Law 111-3 for more details. There are two phases of the PERM program, the measurement phase and the corrective action phase. The PERM measures improper payments in Medicaid and CHIP and produces State and national-level error rates for each program. The error rates are based on reviews of Medicaid and CHIP fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care payments made in the Federal fiscal year under review. States conduct eligibility reviews and report eligibility related payment error rates also used in the national error rate calculation. We created a 17 State rotation cycle so that each State will participate in PERM once every three years. Following is the list of States in which we will measure improper payments over the next three years in Medicaid. We need to collect capitation payment information from the selected States so that the federal contractor can draw a sample and review the managed care capitation payments. We will also collect State managed care contracts, rate schedules and updates to the contracts and rate schedules. This information will be used by the Federal contractor when conducting the managed care claims reviews. Sections 1902(a)(6) and 2107(b)(1) of the Social Security Act grants CMS authority to collect information from the States. The IPIA requires us to produce national error rates in Medicaid and CHIP fee-for-service, including the managed care component. The State-specific Medicaid managed care and CHIP managed care error rates will be based on reviews of managed care capitation payments in each program and will be used to produce national Medicaid managed care and CHIP managed care error rates. Form Number: CMS-10178 (OMB control number: 0938-0994); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 34; Total Annual Responses: 28,050; Total Annual Hours: 28,050. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    5. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Eligibility Error Rate Measurement in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program; Use: The Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002 requires CMS to produce national error rates for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To comply with the IPIA, CMS will use a national contracting strategy to produce error rates for Medicaid and CHIP fee-for-service and managed care improper payments. The federal contractor will review States on a rotational basis so that each State will be measured for improper payments, in each program, once and only once every three years. Subsequent to the first publication, we determined that we will measure Medicaid and CHIP in the same State. Therefore, States will measure Medicaid and CHIP eligibility in the same year measured for fee-for-service and managed care. We believe this approach will advantage States through economies of scale (e.g. administrative ease and shared staffing for both programs reviews). We also determined that interim case completion timeframes and reporting are critical to the integrity of the reviews and to keep the reviews on schedule to produce a timely error rate. Lastly, the sample sizes were increased slightly in order to produce an equal sample size per strata each month. Periodically, CMS will conduct Federal re-reviews of States' PERM files to ensure the accuracy of States' review findings and the validity of the review process. CMS will select a random subsample of Medicaid and CHIP cases from the sample selection lists provided by each State. States will submit all pertinent information related to the review of each sampled case that is selected by CMS. Form Number: CMS-10184 (OMB control number: 0938-1012); Frequency: Annually, Quarterly Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 34; Total Annual Responses: 1,583; Total Annual Hours: 946,164. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    Dated: April 5, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08106 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being-Third Cohort (NSCAW III): Agency Recruitment.

    OMB No.: 0970-0202.

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) intends to collect data on a third cohort of children and families for the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW). NSCAW is the only source of nationally representative, longitudinal, firsthand information about the functioning and well-being, service needs, and service utilization of children and families who come to the attention of the child welfare system. The first two cohorts of NSCAW were collected beginning in 1999 and 2008 and studied children who had been the subject of investigation by Child Protective Services. Children were sampled from child welfare agencies nationwide. The proposed data collection plan for the third cohort of NSCAW includes two phases: Phase 1 includes child welfare agency recruitment and collection of files for sampling children, and Phase 2 includes baseline data collection and an 18-month follow-up data collection. The current data collection plan calls for selecting a new cohort of 4,565 children and families and repeating similar data collection procedures as the previous two cohorts. This Notice is specific to Phase 1. The overall goal is to recruit child welfare agencies in 83 primary sampling units nationwide. Child welfare agencies will be selected with probability proportional to size, based on the current distributions in the child welfare system. Child welfare agency recruitment will include: mail, email, phone calls, and site visits with child welfare agency administrators.

    Respondents: Child welfare agency administrators and other personnel. Data collection will take place over a 2-year period.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Total number
  • of respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • (rounded)
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Annual burden hours
    Information package for agency administrators 83 42 1 .25 11 Initial visit or call with agency staff 83 42 1 1 42 Visit or call with agency staff explaining the sample file process 83 42 1 2 84 Agency staff monthly sample file generation and transmission 83 42 15 1 630

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 767.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above.

    Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, ACF Certifying Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08018 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Assets for Independence Program Performance Progress Report.

    OMB No.: New.

    Description: The Assets for Independence (AFI) Act (Title IV of the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-285, [42 U.S.C. 604 note]) requires that organizations operating AFI projects submit annual progress reports.

    This request is to create an AFI program specific Performance Progress Report (PPR) to replace the semiannual standard form performance progress report (SF-PPR) and the annual data report. The AFI PPR will collect data on project activities and attributes similar to the reports that it is replacing. The Office of Community Services (OCS) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will use the data collected in the AFI PPR to prepare the annual AFI Report to Congress, to evaluate and monitor the performance of the AFI program overall and of individual projects, and to inform and support technical assistance efforts. The AFI PPR would fulfill AFI Act reporting requirements and program purposes.

    The AFI PPR will be submitted quarterly: three times per year using an abbreviated short form and one time using a long form. Both draft data collection instruments are available for review online at http://idaresources.acf.hhs.gov/AFIPPR.

    Respondents: Assets for Independence (AFI) program grantees.

    Annual Burden Estimates:

    Form name Number of
  • responses
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    AFI PPR Short Form 300 3 0.5 450 AFI PPR Long Form 300 1 3.8 1,140 Estimated Annual Burden Hours 1,590
    Additional Information

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08090 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0519] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on How To Submit Information in Electronic Format to the Center for Veterinary Medicine Using the Food and Drug Administration Electronic Submission Gateway AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on extending Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval on the existing reporting requirements relating to how one may submit information electronically to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) using the FDA Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0519 for “Guidance for Industry on How To Submit Information in Electronic Format to the Center for Veterinary Medicine Using the Food and Drug Administration Electronic Submission Gateway.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Guidance for Industry on How To Submit Information in Electronic Format to the Center for Veterinary Medicine Using the Food and Drug Administration Electronic Submission Gateway—21 CFR 11.2 OMB Control Number 0910-0454—Extension

    We accept certain types of submissions electronically with no requirement for a paper copy. These types of documents are listed in public docket 97S-0251 as required by 21 CFR 11.2. Our ability to receive and process information submitted electronically is limited by our current information technology capabilities and the requirements of the Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures final regulation. Our guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry #108: How to Submit Information in Electronic Format to CVM Using the FDA Electronic Submission Gateway” outlines general standards to be used for the submission of any electronic information to CVM using the FDA ESG. The likely respondents are sponsors for new animal drug applications.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section FDA form No. Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    11.2 3538 29 1.3 38 .08 (5 minutes) 3.0 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We base our estimates on our experience with the submission of electronic information to us using the FDA ESG and the number of electronic registration or change requests received between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08075 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than May 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request Title: Enrollment and Re-Certification of Entities in the 340B Drug Pricing Program and Collection of Manufacturer Data to Verify 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price Calculations.

    OMB No. 0915-0327—Revision

    Abstract: Section 602 of Public Law 102-585, the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, enacted as Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act; “Limitation on Prices of Drugs Purchased by Covered Entities”), provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will enter into a Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement (PPA) with each manufacturer of covered outpatient drugs in which the manufacturer agrees to charge a price for covered outpatient drugs that will not exceed the average manufacturer price decreased by a rebate percentage. Under this PPA, a manufacturer agrees not to charge a price for covered outpatient drugs that exceeds an amount determined under a statutory formula (ceiling price). A manufacturer subject to a PPA must offer all covered outpatient drugs at no more than the ceiling price to a covered entity listed in the 340B Program database if such drug is made available to any other purchaser at any price. The manufacturer shall rely on the information in the 340B database to determine if the covered entity is participating in the 340B Program or for any notifications of changes to eligibility that may occur within a quarter. By signing the PPA, the manufacturer agrees to comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In response to comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR, the language has been revised in this notice and in the draft instruments in order to align with the applicable statutory language regarding the obligation to sign the PPA, the circumstances under which participating manufacturers must offer covered outpatient drugs to covered entities, and the description of the ceiling price data required to be provided.

    The purpose of this revision is to include an addendum to the PPA to incorporate the administrative requirement for manufacturer integrity provisions directly addressed in the Affordable Care Act.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: HRSA is proposing revisions to the current PPA to include an addendum in response to manufacturer integrity provisions implemented in the Affordable Care Act. Section 7102(b) of the Affordable Care Act amends section 340B(a)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to add two new requirements for inclusion in the PPA with manufacturers of covered outpatient drugs:

    I. “Each such agreement shall require that the manufacturer furnish the Secretary with reports, on a quarterly basis, of the price for each covered outpatient drug subject to the agreement that, according to the manufacturer, represents the maximum price that covered entities may permissibly be required to pay for the drug . . .” and

    II. “. . . shall require that the manufacturer offer each covered entity covered outpatient drugs for purchase at or below the applicable ceiling price if such drug is made available to any other purchaser at any price.”

    These requirements shall be included in the PPA addendum to be signed by manufacturers participating in the 340B Program to ensure that the provisions of the 340B statute requiring inclusion in the PPA are satisfied. The execution of the addendum by manufacturers will fulfill the administrative requirement of the statute that these provisions be included in the PPA. The burden imposed on manufacturers by the proposed requirement of the PPA is minimal because the addendum does not impose requirements beyond review and a signature by the manufacturer.

    Likely Respondents: Drug Manufacturers.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:

    Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • respondent
  • Total burden hours
    Hospital Enrollment, Additions & Recertifications 340B Program Registrations & Certifications for Hospitals 194 1 194 2 388 Certifications to Enroll Hospital Outpatient Facilities 697 8 5576 0.5 2788 Hospital Annual Recertifications 2134 6 12804 0.25 3201 Registrations and Recertifications for Entities Other Than Hospitals 340B Registrations for Community Health Centers 427 3 1281 1 1281 340B Registrations for STD/TB Clinics 647 1 647 1 647 340B Registrations for Various Other Eligible Entity Types 405 1 405 1 405 Community Health Center Annual Recertifications 1204 5 6020 0.25 1505 STD & TB Annual Recertifications 3123 1 3123 0.25 780.75 Annual Recertification for entities other than Hospitals, Community Health Centers, and STD/TB Clinics 4899 1 4899 0.25 1224.75 Contracted Pharmacy Services Registration & Recertifications Contracted Pharmacy Services Registration 1758 5 8790 1 8790 Other Information Collections Submission of Administrative Changes for any Covered Entity 9396 1 9396 0.5 4698 Submission of Administrative Changes for any Manufacturer 350 1 350 0.5 175 Manufacturer Data Required to Verify 340B Ceiling Price Calculations 600 4 2400 0.5 1200 Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement 200 1 200 1 200 Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement (PPA) Addendum 620 1 620 0.5 310 Total 26,654 56,705 27593.5

    HRSA 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.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08110 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice (NACNEP).

    Dates and Time: June 7-8, 2016, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST.

    Place: In-Person Meeting with Webinar/Conference Call Component, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 5A02/5A03, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    Status: This Advisory Council meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The purpose of the 133rd NACNEP meeting is to explore strategies to prepare registered nurses (RNs) to address the complex health needs of populations within an evolving health care delivery system. NACNEP members will identify and discuss gaps in population health education, as well as educational competencies in population health for RNs. This meeting will contribute to the development of NACNEP's mandated 14th Annual Report to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Congress.

    Agenda: A final agenda will be posted on the NACNEP Web site 3 days prior to the meeting. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Further information regarding NACNEP, including the roster of members, reports to Congress, and minutes from previous meetings, is available at the NACNEP Web site. Members of the public and interested parties may request to attend the meeting by contacting Staff Assistant, Jeanne Brown, at [email protected] Access to the meeting will be granted on a first-come, first-served basis and space is limited. Public attendees may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting. In addition, a public comment period is tentatively scheduled for the first day of the meeting after the lunch break. Oral comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Written statements and registration for oral comments must be received in advance and should be sent to Erin Fowler by email at: [email protected] Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the contact person listed above at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Please be advised that council members are given copies of all written statements submitted by the public prior to the meeting. Any further public participation will be at the discretion of the Chair, with approval of the Designated Federal Official in attendance. Any member of the public who wishes to have printed materials distributed to NACNEP should submit materials to the National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice mailbox at [email protected], no later than 12:00 noon EST on May 26, 2016.

    For additional information regarding NACNEP, please contact Jeanne Brown, Staff Assistant, National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. The telephone number is: (301) 443-5688. The email is: [email protected]

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08036 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting Notice for the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships announces the following meetings:

    Name: President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Council Meetings.

    Time and Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 12:30 p.m.-5 p.m. (EDT) and Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 10 a.m.-1 p.m. (EDT).

    Place: Meeting will be held at a location to be determined in the White House complex, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington, DC. Space is extremely limited. Photo ID and RSVP by April 20, 2016 are required to attend the event. Please RSVP to Ben O'Dell at [email protected]

    The meeting will be available to the public through a conference call line. Register to participate in the conference call on Monday, April 25th at the Web site https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/911554886758464772. Register to participate in the conference call on Tuesday, April 26th at the Web site https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7807447724588340484.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by space available. Conference call limited only by lines available.

    Purpose: The Council brings together leaders and experts in fields related to the work of faith-based and neighborhood organizations in order to: Identify best practices and successful modes of delivering social services; evaluate the need for improvements in the implementation and coordination of public policies relating to faith- based and other neighborhood organizations; and make recommendations for changes in policies, programs, and practices.

    Contact Person for Additional Information: Please contact Ben O'Dell for any additional information about the President's Advisory Council meeting at [email protected]

    Agenda: For April 25th, the agenda will begin with an Opening and Welcome from the Chairperson and Executive Director for the President's Advisory Council for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnership. Then there will be presentation of any Recommendations for deliberation and vote. For April 26th, there will be presentations of any Recommendations for deliberation and vote after a welcome and opening from the Chairperson and Executive Director for the President's Advisory Council.

    Public Comment: There will be an opportunity for public comment at the end of the meeting. Comments and questions can be sent in advance to [email protected]

    Dated: April 4th, 2016. Ben O'Dell, Associate Director for Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08150 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015; Request for Information Regarding Assessing Interoperability for MACRA AGENCY:

    Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    In section 106(b)(1) of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (Pub. L. 114-10, enacted April 16, 2015), Congress declares it a national objective to achieve widespread exchange of health information through interoperable certified electronic health record (EHR) technology nationwide by December 31, 2018. Section 106(b)(1)(C) of the MACRA provides that by July 1, 2016, and in consultation with stakeholders, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall establish metrics to be used to determine if and to the extent this objective has been met.

    ONC intends to consider metrics that address the specific populations and aspects of interoperable health information described in section 106(b)(1)(B) of the MACRA. ONC is issuing this RFI is to solicit input on the following three topics: (1) Measurement population and key components of interoperability that should be measured; (2) current data sources and potential metrics that address section 106(b)(1) of the MACRA; and (3) other data sources and metrics ONC should consider with respect to section 106(b)(1) of the MACRA or interoperability measurement more broadly.

    DATES:

    To be assured consideration, written or electronic comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, refer to file code ONC xxxx. Because of staff and resource limitations, ONC cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions. Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, or Adobe PDF; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.

    2. By regular mail. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. You may mail written comments to the following address: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordina