Federal Register Vol. 81, No.82,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 82 (April 28, 2016)

Page Range25323-25584
FR Document

81_FR_82
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 25464 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees Under Rules 7015(b) and (g)PDF
81 FR 25403 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 25404 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 25454 - In the Matter of Valentine Beauty Inc., File No. 500-1; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 25404 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 25391 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use ActPDF
81 FR 25484 - Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 25398 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; 2017 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and ModificationPDF
81 FR 25397 - Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of Three New Reference Methods and Three New Equivalent MethodsPDF
81 FR 25393 - Forshaw Chemicals Superfund Site; Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Notice of SettlementPDF
81 FR 25404 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 25484 - Reduction of Remote Communications Outlets Used by Flight Service Stations in the Conterminous United StatesPDF
81 FR 25446 - National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 25339 - Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks; Allegheny River Mile 0.2 to 0.8; Pittsburgh, PAPDF
81 FR 25448 - In the Matter of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC, and Ohio Edison Company; Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1PDF
81 FR 25483 - Notice of Charter Renewal: The Department of State Has Renewed the Charter of the Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP) for a Period of Two YearsPDF
81 FR 25483 - Fine Arts Committee Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 25425 - Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
81 FR 25394 - Adequacy Determination for the Medford, Oregon Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan for Transportation Conformity PurposesPDF
81 FR 25401 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Application for New Active IngredientPDF
81 FR 25374 - Foreign-Trade Zone 229-Charleston, West Virginia; Application for Reorganization/Expansion Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
81 FR 25374 - Foreign-Trade Zone 186-Waterville, Maine; Application for Subzone, Flemish Master Weavers' Sanford, MainePDF
81 FR 25412 - Notice of Extension of Time for Completion of Manufacturer Corrections Approved Under a Waiver of a Plan for NotificationPDF
81 FR 25413 - Notice of Extension of Time for Completion of Manufacturer Corrections Approved Under a Waiver of a Plan for NotificationPDF
81 FR 25413 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection Comment Request Fair Housing Initiatives Program Grant Application and Monitoring ReportsPDF
81 FR 25363 - Payment of Premiums; Late Payment Penalty ReliefPDF
81 FR 25430 - Body Worn Camera Technologies Market SurveyPDF
81 FR 25419 - Filing of Plats of Survey, NebraskaPDF
81 FR 25391 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; IRFlex CorporationPDF
81 FR 25390 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 25406 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 25417 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or WildlifePDF
81 FR 25408 - Compliance Policy Guide on Crabmeat-Fresh and Frozen-Adulteration With Filth, Involving the Presence of Escherichia coliPDF
81 FR 25483 - Finger Lakes Railway Corp.-Sublease and Operation Exemption-Cayuga County Industrial Development Agency, Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency, Ontario County Industrial Development Agency, Schuyler County Industrial Development Agency, and Yates County Industrial Development AgencyPDF
81 FR 25389 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Recreational Information Program Fishing Effort SurveyPDF
81 FR 25432 - Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction RestrictionsPDF
81 FR 25414 - MidAmerican Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan; Draft Environmental Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 25486 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 25493 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 25404 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 25409 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Postmarket SurveillancePDF
81 FR 25411 - American Indians Into Nursing Program; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 25369 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; USDA/Rural Development-1 Current or Prospective Producers or Landowners, Applicants, Borrowers, Grantees, Tenants, and Other Participants in RD ProgramsPDF
81 FR 25392 - Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice Of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted For Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 25392 - Energy Resources USA INC.;Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 25391 - Turners Falls Hydro, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 25411 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, With Changes, of an Existing Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 25418 - Filing of Plats of Survey; NVPDF
81 FR 25475 - Security-Based Swap Data Repositories; ICE Trade Vault, LLC; Notice of Filing of Application for Registration as a Security-Based Swap Data RepositoryPDF
81 FR 25454 - Order Regarding Review of Fasb Accounting Support Fee for 2016 Under Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002PDF
81 FR 25402 - FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, April 28, 2016PDF
81 FR 25376 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 25382 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 25407 - Announcing the Intent To Award a Single-Source Expansion Supplement Grant to the National Domestic Violence HotlinePDF
81 FR 25494 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Minority VeteransPDF
81 FR 25405 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 25429 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActPDF
81 FR 25420 - United States v. Leucadia National Corporation; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 25446 - Office of Small Credit Unions (OSCUI) Grant Program Access For Credit UnionsPDF
81 FR 25405 - Submission for OMB Review; Simplifying Federal Award ReportingPDF
81 FR 25366 - Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea; Public Listening SessionsPDF
81 FR 25486 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 25389 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Stock Assessment of Alaska Sablefish; Peer Review MeetingPDF
81 FR 25583 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2016 Recreational Fishing Seasons for Red Snapper in the Gulf of MexicoPDF
81 FR 25420 - Temporary Physical Address Change for General Ledger TeamPDF
81 FR 25419 - Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index ZonePDF
81 FR 25399 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Chemical Preparations Industry (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 25394 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 25455 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options FacilityPDF
81 FR 25460 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options FacilityPDF
81 FR 25473 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To (i) Amend BOX Rule 7280 (Bulk Cancellation of Trading Interest) To Adopt a Kill Switch and (ii) Amend BOX Rule 7110 (Order Entry) To Modify the Circumstances That Will Prevent a Session Order From Being CancelledPDF
81 FR 25462 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to FeesPDF
81 FR 25457 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Qualified Contingent Cross PricingPDF
81 FR 25467 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the Elkhorn Dorsey Wright Commodity Rotation Portfolio of Elkhorn ETF TrustPDF
81 FR 25464 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Rule 606PDF
81 FR 25402 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Area Sources: Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals-Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 25393 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 25396 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 25575 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures; Amendment 28PDF
81 FR 25400 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the HCFC Allowance System (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 25395 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978 (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 25539 - Suspension of Benefits Under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014PDF
81 FR 25375 - Subsidy Programs Provided by Countries Exporting Softwood Lumber and Softwood Lumber Products to the United States; Request for CommentPDF
81 FR 25454 - Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee On Reliability & PRA; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 25386 - Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 25388 - Opportunity for U.S. Companies To Submit Smart City Products, Services, and Capabilities for Showcasing as Export Listings in the Upcoming Smart Cities, Regions and Communities: Global Tools of EngagementPDF
81 FR 25383 - 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 25377 - 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationPDF
81 FR 25375 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
81 FR 25429 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Firearms Act (NFA) Responsible Person Questionnaire (ATF Form 5320.23)PDF
81 FR 25430 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Tax Exempt Transfer and Registration of Firearm (ATF Form 5 (5320.5)PDF
81 FR 25428 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm (ATF Form 4 (5320.4)PDF
81 FR 25427 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application To Make and Register a Firearm (ATF Form 1 (5320.1)PDF
81 FR 25328 - New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Changes of Sponsorship; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 25355 - Air Quality Plans; Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
81 FR 25450 - In the Matter of All Power Reactor Licensees Owned and Operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Entergy Operations, Inc.; and Entergy Nuclear Generation CompanyPDF
81 FR 25326 - Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 25328 - Section 6708 Failure To Maintain List of Advisees With Respect to Reportable TransactionsPDF
81 FR 25339 - Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected YouthPDF
81 FR 25326 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Deer Lodge MTPDF
81 FR 25357 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 25360 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 25497 - Medicare Program; FY 2017 Hospice Wage Index and Payment Rate Update and Hospice Quality Reporting RequirementsPDF
81 FR 25323 - Finalization of Interim Final Rules (Subject to Any Intervening Amendments) Under Consumer Financial Protection LawsPDF

Issue

81 82 Thursday, April 28, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Housing Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgments and Competitive Impact Statements: United States v. Leucadia National Corp., 25420-25425 2016-09915 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Consumer Financial Protection Laws: Finalization of Interim Final Rules, 25323-25326 2016-09431 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: FY 2017 Hospice Wage Index and Payment Rate Update and Hospice Quality Reporting Requirements, 25498-25538 2016-09631 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25406-25407 2016-09953 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Single-Source Expansion Supplement Grants: National Domestic Violence Hotline, 25407-25408 2016-09925 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones: Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks, Allegheny River Mile 0.2 to 0.8, Pittsburgh, PA, 25339 2016-09990 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25390-25391 2016-09954
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D., 25425-25427 2016-09973 Education Department Education Department RULES Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria--Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, 25339-25355 2016-09749 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Proposed Exemptions from Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions, 25432-25446 2016-09946 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 25391 2016-10013
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 25355-25356 2016-09861 NOTICES Adequacy Determination for the Medford, Oregon Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes, 25394-25395 2016-09968 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2017 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, 25398-25399 2016-10007 Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining, 25393 2016-09894 NESHAP for Area Sources: Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals—Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium; Renewal, 25402 2016-09895 NESHAP for Chemical Preparations Industry, 25399-25400 2016-09904 NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing; Renewal, 25394 2016-09903 NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing; Renewal, 25396-25397 2016-09893 NSPS for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978 (Renewal), 25395-25396 2016-09889 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the HCFC Allowance System; Renewal, 25400-25401 2016-09890 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of Three New Reference Methods and Three New Equivalent Methods, 25397-25398 2016-10006 Pesticide Product Registrations: Receipt of Application for New Active Ingredient, 25401-25402 2016-09966 Settlements under CERCLA: Forshaw Chemicals Superfund Site; Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC, 25393-25394 2016-09998 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Deer Lodge MT; Correction, 25326 2016-09699 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 25357-25363 2016-09643 2016-09647 NOTICES Meetings: Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, 25484 2016-10010 Reduction of Remote Communications Outlets Used by Flight Service Stations in the Conterminous United States, 25484-25486 2016-09992 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Meetings: Federal Communications Commission, 25402-25403 2016-09929 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25403-25404 2016-10088 2016-10089 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Energy Resources USA, Inc., 25392 2016-09937 Turners Falls Hydro, LLC, 25391-25392 2016-09935 Preliminary Permit Applications: Energy Resources USA, Inc., 25392-25393 2016-09936 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25486 2016-09944 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25404 2016-09996 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea; Public Listening Sessions, 25366-25368 2016-09911 NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 25486-25493 2016-09910 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration PROPOSED RULES Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea; Public Listening Sessions, 25366-25368 2016-09911 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 25404-25405 2016-09920 2016-09942 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25404-25405 2016-10026 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife, 25417-25418 2016-09952 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: MidAmerican Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan, 25414-25417 2016-09945 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals; Technical Amendment, 25326-25328 2016-09784 New Animal Drugs: Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Changes of Sponsorship; Correction, 25328 2016-09865 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Postmarket Surveillance, 25409-25411 2016-09940 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Crabmeat--Fresh and Frozen--Adulteration with Filth, Involving the Presence of Escherichia coli, 25408-25409 2016-09951 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Application for Subzones: Foreign-Trade Zone 186; Waterville, Maine, 25374-25375 2016-09964 Applications for Reorganization/Expansion under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 229;Charleston, West Virginia, 25374 2016-09965 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Simplifying Federal Award Reporting, 25405-25406 2016-09912 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fair Housing Initiatives Program Grant Application and Monitoring Reports, 25413-25414 2016-09961 Extension of Time for Completion of Manufacturer Corrections Approved Under a Waiver of a Plan for Notification, 25412-25413 2016-09962 2016-09963 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES American Indians into Nursing Program; Correction, 25411 2016-09939 Information Information Security Oversight Office NOTICES Meetings: National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee, 25446 2016-09991 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Section 6708 Failure to Maintain List of Advisees with Respect to Reportable Transactions, 25328-25339 2016-09765 Suspension of Benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, 25540-25573 2016-09888 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25376-25377, 25382 2016-09926 2016-09927 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from People's Republic of China, 25383-25386 2016-09882 Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China, 25386-25388 2016-09884 Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 25375 2016-09880 Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China, 25377-25382 2016-09881 Opportunity for U.S. Companies to Submit Smart City Products, Services, and Capabilities for Showcasing as Export Listings in the Upcoming Smart Cities, Regions and Communities; Global Tools of Engagement, 25388-25389 2016-09883 Subsidy Programs Provided by Countries Exporting Softwood Lumber and Softwood Lumber Products to the United States, 25375-25376 2016-09887 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Justice Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Tax Exempt Transfer and Registration of Firearm; ATF Form 5 5320.5, 25430 2016-09876 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm; ATF Form 4 5320.4, 25428-25429 2016-09875 Application to Make and Register a Firearm; ATF Form 1 5320.1, 25427-25428 2016-09874 National Firearms Act (NFA) Responsible Person Questionnaire; ATF Form 5320.23, 25429-25430 2016-09877 Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 25429 2016-09918
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Body Worn Camera Technologies Market Survey, 25430-25432 2016-09958 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Plats of Survey: Nebraska, 25419 2016-09957 Nevada, 25418 2016-09933 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See

Information Security Oversight Office

National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Grant Program Access for Credit Unions, 25446-25448 2016-09913 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2016 Recreational Fishing Seasons for Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, 25583-25584 2016-09907 Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures; Amendment 28, 25576-25583 2016-09892 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Marine Recreational Information Program Fishing Effort Survey, 25389-25390 2016-09948 Meetings: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Stock Assessment of Alaska Sablefish; Peer Review, 25389 2016-09908 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Intents to Grant Exclusive Patent Licenses: IRFlex Corp., 25391 2016-09956 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Confirmatory Orders: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Entergy Operations, Inc.; and Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., 25450-25454 2016-09841 Direct Transfers of Licenses; Orders: FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC, and Ohio Edison Co.; Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, 25448-25450 2016-09984 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on Reliability and PRA, 25454 2016-09885 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue NOTICES Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated with an Index Zone, 25419-25420 2016-09905 Temporary Physical Address Change for General Ledger Team, 25420 2016-09906 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation PROPOSED RULES Payment of Premiums; Late Payment Penalty Relief, 25363-25366 2016-09960 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records: Rural Development-1 Current or Prospective Producers or Landowners, Applicants, Borrowers, Grantees, Tenants, and Other Participants in RD Programs, 25369-25374 2016-09938 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records: Rural Development-1 Current or Prospective Producers or Landowners, Applicants, Borrowers, Grantees, Tenants, and Other Participants in RD Programs, 25369-25374 2016-09938 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records: Rural Development-1 Current or Prospective Producers or Landowners, Applicants, Borrowers, Grantees, Tenants, and Other Participants in RD Programs, 25369-25374 2016-09938 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Security-Based Swap Data Repositories; ICE Trade Vault, LLC, 25475-25483 2016-09931 Orders: Review of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Support Fee, 25454-25455 2016-09930 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 25462-25464 2016-09899 BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 25455-25456, 25460-25462, 25473-25475 2016-09900 2016-09901 2016-09902 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 25457-25460, 25464-25467 2016-09896 2016-09898 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 25464, 25467-25473 C1--2016--07937 2016-09897 Trading Suspension Orders: Valentine Beauty Inc., 25454 2016-10031 State Department State Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: International Communications and Information Policy, 25483 2016-09976 Meetings: Fine Arts Committee, 25483 2016-09974 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Sublease and Operation Exemptions: Finger Lakes Railway Corp.; Cayuga County Industrial Development Agency, Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency, et al., 25483-25484 2016-09950 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25493-25494 2016-09943
Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25411-25412 2016-09934 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, 25494-25495 2016-09921 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 25498-25538 2016-09631 Part III Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 25540-25573 2016-09888 Part IV Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 25576-25584 2016-09907 2016-09892 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 82 Thursday, April 28, 2016 Rules and Regulations BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Parts 1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1022, 1024, 1026, and 1030 RIN 3170-AA06 Finalization of Interim Final Rules (Subject to Any Intervening Amendments) Under Consumer Financial Protection Laws AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION:

Final rule; official interpretations.

SUMMARY:

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from seven Federal agencies to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) as of July 21, 2011. In December 2011, the Bureau republished the existing regulations implementing those laws, as previously adopted by the seven predecessor agencies, as interim final rules (December 2011 IFRs) with technical and conforming changes to reflect the transfer of authority and certain other changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act. The December 2011 IFRs did not impose any new substantive obligations on persons subject to the existing regulations. This final rule adopts the December 2011 IFRs as final, subject to any intervening final rules published by the Bureau.

DATES:

This final rule is effective April 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristen Phinnessee, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Summary of the Final Rule

In response to an unprecedented cycle of expansion and contraction in the mortgage market that sparked the most severe U.S. recession since the Great Depression, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which was signed into law on July 21, 2010. In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress established the Bureau and generally consolidated the rulemaking authority for Federal consumer financial laws in the Bureau.1 Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from seven Federal agencies to the Bureau as of July 21, 2011. These included the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (except with respect to section 920) (EFTA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (except with respect to sections 615(e) and 628) (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Subsections (b) through (f) of section 43 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), sections 502 through 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (except for section 505 as it applies to section 501(b)) (GLBA), the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA), the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (SAFE), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Truth in Savings Act (TISA), section 626 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (MAP and MARS), and the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) (together, the 14 Acts).

1See, e.g., sections 1011 and 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5491 and 5511 (establishing and setting forth the purpose, objectives, and functions of the Bureau); section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5581 (consolidating certain rulemaking authority for Federal consumer financial laws in the Bureau).

From December 16-27, 2011, the Bureau republished in the Federal Register the regulations implementing the 14 Acts as new parts of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, through interim final rules, with only certain technical and conforming changes to reflect the transfer of authority and certain other changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act (the December 2011 IFRs). The December 2011 IFRs did not impose any new substantive obligations on persons subject to the existing regulations. The final rule adopts the December 2011 IFRs with no changes, subject to any intervening final rules published by the Bureau.

II. Summary of the Rulemaking Process

On December 16, 19-22, and 27, 2011, the Bureau published in the Federal Register its interim final rules adopting certain regulations implementing a number of consumer financial protection laws transferred to the Bureau by title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.2 The comment periods closed on various dates from February 14-27, 2012. In response to the December 2011 IFRs, the Bureau received over 100 comments from consumer groups, creditors, industry trade associations, and others. As discussed in more detail below, the Bureau has considered these comments in adopting this final rule.

2 76 FR 78121 (Dec. 16, 2011), 76 FR 78126 (Dec. 16, 2011), 76 FR 78130 (Dec. 16, 2011), 76 FR 78465 (Dec. 19, 2011), 76 FR 78483 (Dec. 19, 2011), 76 FR 78500 (Dec. 19, 2011), 76 FR 78978 (Dec. 20, 2011), 76 FR 79025 (Dec. 21, 2011), 76 FR 79276 (Dec. 21, 2011), 76 FR 79308 (Dec. 21, 2011), 76 FR 79442 (Dec. 21, 2011), 76 FR 79486 (Dec. 21, 2011), 76 FR 79768 (Dec. 22, 2011), and 76 FR 81020 (Dec. 27, 2011).

III. Legal Authority

The Bureau is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the 14 Acts and the Dodd-Frank Act. Effective July 21, 2011, section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Bureau the “consumer financial protection functions” previously vested in certain other Federal agencies. The term “consumer financial protection functions” is defined to include “all authority to prescribe rules or issue orders or guidelines pursuant to any Federal consumer financial law, including performing appropriate functions to promulgate and review such rules, orders, and guidelines.” 3 The 14 Acts are all Federal consumer financial laws.4 Accordingly, effective July 21, 2011, except with respect to persons excluded from the Bureau's rulemaking authority by section 1029 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the authority to issue regulations pursuant to the 14 Acts transferred to the Bureau.5

3 Public Law 111-203, section 1061(a)(1). Effective on the designated transfer date, July 21, 2011, the Bureau was also granted “all powers and duties” vested in each of the Federal agencies, relating to the consumer financial protection functions, on the day before the designated transfer date.

4 Public Law 111-203, section 1002(14) (defining “Federal consumer financial law” to include the “enumerated consumer laws”); id. section 1002(12) (defining “enumerated consumer laws” to include the 14 Acts).

5See also 15 U.S.C. 1691b; 12 U.S.C. 2804; 15 U.S.C. 1693b; 15 U.S.C. 1692l; 12 U.S.C. 5106-5108; 12 U.S.C. 1831t(c), 1831t(d); 15 U.S.C. 1718; 15 U.S.C. 1667f; Public Law 111-8, section 626, 123 Stat. 524, as amended by Public Law 111-24, section 511, 123 Stat. 1734; 15 U.S.C. 6804(a)(1)(A); 15 U.S.C. 1681s(e); 12 U.S.C. 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617; 12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1604(a); 12 U.S.C. 4308.

IV. Summary of Comments to the December 2011 Interim Final Rules

As noted above, the Bureau received over 100 comments in response to the issuance of the December 2011 IFRs. The comments generally fall into four broad categories. First, a number of comments discussed possible typographical, grammatical, or similar errors in the underlying regulations as they were originally adopted by the predecessor agencies and then restated by the Bureau. Second, a number of comments discussed the fact that, with the change in codification, existing internet links across a range of Web pages to the original citations in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations would become obsolete. Third, a number of comments asked the Bureau to confirm that it is bound by existing informal advisory opinions issued by predecessor agencies. Fourth, a number of comments urged that the Bureau make various substantive changes to the regulations adopted by the December 2011 IFRs.

The Bureau has considered all of the comments received and has decided to adopt the December 2011 IFRs as final without change, subject to any intervening final rules published by the Bureau. The purpose of this notice is strictly to finalize the December 2011 IFRs; as any potential typographical errors do not change the meaning of the regulations, possible typographical, grammatical, or similar errors in the original regulations may be addressed in subsequent rulemakings. Similarly, substantive changes to the regulations adopted by the December 2011 IFRs have been, and may further be, addressed in subsequent rulemakings. Further, although it is regrettable that existing internet links may have become obsolete because of the changes in codification, the Bureau believes that such issues most likely have been overcome over the approximately four years since the Bureau adopted the December 2011 IFRs by changes made to the old links. In any event, the Bureau was charged by Congress with conducting certain rulemakings, and it was necessary for the Bureau to put in place its own regulations in order to do so.

Lastly, with regard to the treatment of informal advisory opinions issued by predecessor agencies, the Bureau had addressed the issue prior to the December 2011 IFRs. Section 1063(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act required the Bureau to identify the rules and orders that would be transferred to the Bureau from each transferor agency. On July 21, 2011, the Bureau published in the Federal Register the identification of enforceable rules and orders.6 In this notice, the Bureau published a list of rules that will be enforceable by the Bureau and also noted that it “will give due consideration to the application of other written guidance, interpretations, and policy statements issued prior to July 21, 2011, by a transferor agency in light of all relevant factors . . .”.7

6 76 FR 43569 (July 21, 2011).

7Id., at 43570.

V. Dodd Frank Act Section 1022(b) Analysis

In developing the final rule, the Bureau has considered potential benefits, costs, and impacts.8 In addition, the Bureau has consulted, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of the Treasury, including regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by such agencies.

8 Section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of access by consumers to consumer financial products or services; the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and the impact on consumers in rural areas. Section 1022(b)(2)(B) requires that the Bureau “consult with the appropriate prudential regulators or other Federal agencies prior to proposing a rule and during the comment process regarding consistency with prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by such agencies.”

This rule adopts the December 2011 IFRs with no changes, subject to any intervening final rules published by the Bureau. The rule will not impose any new substantive obligations on consumers or covered persons and is not expected to have any impact on consumers' access to consumer financial products and services. As a general matter, the final rule does not impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements beyond those previously in existence.

The Bureau has chosen to evaluate the benefits, costs and impacts of the final rule against the current state of the world, which takes into account the current regulatory regime. The Bureau is not aware of any significant benefits or costs to consumers or covered persons associated with the final rule relative to the baseline. Because the final rule adopts no changes to any of the subject regulations, which are already in place as a consequence of the December 2011 IFRs, there is no practical impact on consumers or covered persons.

The final rules will have no unique impact on depository institutions or credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets as described in section 1026(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Also, the final rules will have no unique impact on rural consumers.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations.9 The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.10 The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.11

9 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

10 5 U.S.C. 603, 604.

11 5 U.S.C. 609.

The IRFA and FRFA requirements described above apply only where a notice of proposed rulemaking is required,12 and the panel requirement applies only when a rulemaking requires an IRFA.13 The Bureau concluded that a notice of proposed rulemaking was not required for the December 2011 IFRs. This final rule adopts the December 2011 IFRs as final, except to the extent they have been amended in subsequent rulemakings. Therefore, a FRFA is not required.

12 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a); 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

13 5 U.S.C. 609(b).

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) the Bureau may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a respondent is not required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This rule contains no new or revised information collection requirements. The Bureau's OMB control numbers for the information collections in the respective existing regulations are as follows:

Regulation OMB Control No. Regulation B 3170-0013. Regulation C 3170-0008. Regulation E 3170-0014. Regulation F 3170-0056. Regulations G & H Regulation G: 3170-0005. Regulation H: Not applicable.14 Regulation I 3170-0062. Regulations J, K, & L 3170-0012. Regulation M 3170-0006. Regulation N 3170-0009. Regulation O 3170-0007. Regulation P 3170-0010. Regulation V 3170-0002. Regulation X 3170-0016. Regulation Z 3170-0015. Regulation DD 3170-0004.

14 Regulation H contains no information collections requiring approval under the PRA.

List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 1002

Aged, Banking, Banks, Civil rights, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Discrimination, Fair lending, Marital status discrimination, National banks, National origin discrimination, Penalties, Race discrimination, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Sex discrimination.

12 CFR Part 1003

Banking, Banks, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Savings associations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

12 CFR Part 1005

Automated teller machines, Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit unions, Electronic fund transfers, National banks, Remittance transfers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

12 CFR Part 1006

Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Credit, Intergovernmental relations.

12 CFR Parts 1007 and 1008

Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agriculture, Bank deposit insurance, Banking, Banks, Confidential business information, Conflict of interests, Consumer protection, Credit unions, Crime, Currency, Exports, Foreign banking, Grant programs—housing and community development, Holding companies, Insurance, Investments, Loan programs—housing and community development, Licensing, Mortgages, National banks, Penalties, Registration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Savings associations, Securities, Surety bonds.

12 CFR Part 1009

Credit unions, Depository institutions, Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, Federal deposit insurance.

12 CFR Parts 1010, 1011, and 1012

Adjudicatory proceedings, Advertising disclaimers, Certification of substantially equivalent state law, Filing assistance, Land registration, Reporting requirements, Purchasers' revocation rights, Unlawful sales practices.

12 CFR Part 1013

Advertising, Consumer leasing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Truth in lending.

12 CFR Parts 1014 and 1015

Advertising, Business practices related to mortgage loans, Communications, Consumer protection, Credit, Mortgages, Telemarketing, Trade practices.

12 CFR Part 1016

Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Foreign banking, Holding companies, National banks, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Trade practices.

12 CFR Part 1022

Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit unions, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Holding companies, National banks, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State member banks.

12 CFR Part 1024

Condominiums, Consumer protection, Housing, Insurance, Mortgagees, Mortgages, Mortgage servicing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

12 CFR Part 1026

Advertising, Appraisal, Appraiser, Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.

12 CFR Part 1030

Advertising, Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in savings.

Authority and Issuance

For the foregoing reasons, the Bureau adopts as final the December 2011 IFRs, excluding the listed related amendments, as follows:

A. 76 FR 79442 (Dec. 21, 2011), as amended by 78 FR 7216 (Jan. 31, 2013), and 78 FR 60382 (Oct. 1, 2013);

B. 76 FR 78465 (Dec. 19, 2011), as amended by 77 FR 8721 (Feb. 15, 2012), 77 FR 76839 (Dec. 31, 2012), 78 FR 79285 (Dec. 30, 2013), 79 FR 77854 (Dec. 29, 2014), 80 FR 66128 (Oct. 28, 2015), 80 FR 69567 (Nov. 10, 2015), and 80 FR 79673 (Dec. 23, 2015);

C. 76 FR 81020 (Dec. 27, 2011), as amended by 77 FR 6194 (Feb. 7, 2012), 77 FR 40459 (July 10, 2012), 77 FR 50244 (Aug. 20, 2012), 78 FR 6025 (Jan. 29, 2013), 78 FR 18221 (Mar. 26, 2013), 78 FR 30662 (May 22, 2013), 78 FR 49365 (Aug. 14, 2013), and 79 FR 55970 (Sept. 18, 2014);

D. 76 FR 78121 (Dec. 16, 2011);

E. 76 FR 78483 (Dec. 19, 2011);

F. 76 FR 78126 (Dec. 16, 2011);

G. 76 FR 79486 (Dec. 21, 2011), as amended by 77 FR 26154 (May 3, 2012);

H. 76 FR 78500 (Dec. 19, 2011), as amended by 76 FR 81789 (Dec. 29, 2011), 77 FR 69735 (Nov. 21, 2012), 78 FR 70193 (Nov. 25, 2013), 79 FR 56482 (Sept. 22, 2014), and 80 FR 73945 (Nov. 27, 2015);

I. 76 FR 78130 (Dec. 16, 2011);

J. 76 FR 79025 (Dec. 21, 2011), as amended by 79 FR 64057 (Oct. 28, 2014);

K. 76 FR 79308 (Dec. 21, 2011), as amended by 77 FR 67744 (Nov. 14, 2012);

L. 76 FR 78978 (Dec. 20, 2011), as amended by 78 FR 6856 (Jan. 31, 2013), 78 FR 10696 (Feb. 14, 2013), 78 FR 44686 (July 24, 2013), 78 FR 60382 (Oct. 1, 2013), 78 FR 62993 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 68343 (Nov. 14, 2013), 78 FR 79730 (Dec. 31, 2013), 80 FR 8767 (Feb.19, 2015), 80 FR 22091 (Apr. 21, 2015), 80 FR 43911 (July 24, 2015), 80 FR 80228 (Dec. 24, 2015), and 81 FR 7032 (Feb. 10, 2016);

M. 76 FR 79768 (Dec. 22, 2011), as amended by 77 FR 69736 (Nov. 21, 2012), 77 FR 69738 (Nov. 21, 2012), 77 FR 70105 (Nov. 23, 2012), 78 FR 4726 (Jan. 22, 2013), 78 FR 6408 (Jan. 30, 2013), 78 FR 6856 (Jan. 31, 2013), 78 FR 10368 (Feb. 13, 2013), 78 FR 10902 (Feb. 14, 2013), 78 FR 11280 (Feb. 15, 2013), 78 FR 18795 (Mar. 28, 2013), 78 FR 25818 (May 3, 2013), 78 FR 30739 (May 23, 2013), 78 FR 32547 (May 31, 2013), 78 FR 35430 (June 12, 2013), 78 FR 44686 (July 24, 2013), 78 FR 45842 (July 30, 2013), 78 FR 60382 (Oct. 1, 2013), 78 FR 62993 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 70194 (Nov. 25, 2013), 78 FR 76033 (Dec. 16, 2013), 78 FR 78520 (Dec. 26, 2013), 78 FR 79286 (Dec. 30, 2013), 78 FR 79730 (Dec. 31, 2013), 79 FR 41631 (July 17, 2014), 79 FR 48015 (Aug. 15, 2014), 79 FR 56483 (Sept. 22, 2014), 79 FR 65300 (Nov. 3, 2014), 79 FR 77855 (Dec. 29, 2014), 79 FR 78296 (Dec. 30, 2014), 80 FR 8767 (Feb. 19, 2015), 80 FR 21153 (Apr. 17, 2015), 80 FR 22091 (Apr. 21, 2015), 80 FR 32658 (June 9, 2015), 80 FR 43911 (July 24, 2015), 80 FR 56895 (Sept. 21, 2015), 80 FR 59944 (Oct. 2, 2015), 80 FR 73943 (Nov. 27, 2015), 80 FR 73947 (Nov. 27, 2015), 80 FR 79674 (Dec. 23, 2015), 80 FR 80228 (Dec. 24, 2015), 81 FR 7032 (Feb. 10, 2016), and 81 FR 16074 (Mar. 25, 2016); and N. 76 FR 79276 (Dec. 21, 2011).

Dated: April 12, 2016. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2016-09431 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3773; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-22] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Deer Lodge MT AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, correction.

SUMMARY:

This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal Register of March 29, 2016, amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Deer Lodge-City-County Airport, Deer Lodge, MT. The FAA identified that the Class E airspace area extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface was omitted from the Class E airspace description for the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, May 26, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Roberts, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (425) 203-4517.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Deer Lodge-City-County Airport, Deer Lodge, MT. (81 FR 17377, March 29, 2016) Docket No. FAA-2015-3773. Subsequent to publication, the Aeronautical Information Services branch identified that the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface was inadvertently left out of the regulatory text describing the boundary for the airport. This action reestablishes the airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface as part of that description.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. Availability information for FAA Order 7400.9Z can be found in the original final rule (81 FR 17377, March 29, 2016). FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

Correction to Final Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of March 29, 2016 (81 FR 17377) FR Doc. 2016-06934, Amendment of Class E Airspace; Deer Lodge, MT, is corrected as follows:

§ 71.1 [Amended] ANM MT E5 Deer Lodge, MT [Corrected]

On page 17378, column 3, after line 48, add the following text:

“That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 46°41′00″ N., long. 114°08′00″ W.; to lat. 47°03′00″ N., long. 113°33′00″ W.; to lat. 46°28′00″ N., long. 112°15′00″ W.; to lat. 45°41′00″ N., long. 112°13′00″ W.; to lat. 45°44′00″ N., long. 113°03′00″ W.; thence to the point of origin.”

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on_April 18, 2016. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-09699 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0143] RIN 0910-AG64 Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending a final rule published in the Federal Register of November 27, 2015. That final rule established requirements for importers to verify that food they import into the United States is produced consistent with the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls and standards for produce safety provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), is not adulterated, and is not misbranded with respect to food allergen labeling. The final rule published with some editorial and inadvertent errors. This document corrects those errors.

DATES:

Effective April 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Pendleton, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4614, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Federal Register of November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74226), FDA published the final rule “Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals” with some editorial and inadvertent errors. We are taking this action to correct inadvertent errors in the preamble to the final rule and to improve the accuracy of the provisions added to the Code of Federal Regulations.

1. On page 74271, in the second paragraph of section III.E.5, in the discussion of allowing importers to obtain certain information needed to meet their FSVP requirements from other entities as described in certain sections of the document, the reference to “sections III.E.5, III.F.4, and III.G.4” is corrected to read “sections III.A.7, III.F.4, and III.G.4”.

2. On page 74332, in the third column, in the second “bullet” point in Response 334, “For the importation of food from a supplier that is subject to the preventive controls regulations for human food or animal food or the produce safety regulation, 6 months after the foreign supplier of the food is required to comply with the relevant regulations;” is corrected to read “For the importation of food from a supplier that is subject to the preventive controls regulation for human food, the preventive controls or CGMP requirements in the preventive controls regulation for animal food, or the produce safety regulation, 6 months after the foreign supplier of the food is required to comply with the relevant regulations;”.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1

Cosmetics, Drugs, Exports, Food labeling, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

PART 1—GENERAL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 1333, 1453, 1454, 1455, 4402; 19 U.S.C. 1490, 1491; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335a, 343, 350c, 350d, 350j, 352, 355, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 360ccc-2, 362, 371, 374, 381, 382, 384a, 384b, 384d, 387, 387a, 387c, 393; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 243, 262, 264, 271.

2. Amend § 1.500 by revising the definitions of “Environmental pathogen”, “Harvesting”, and “Manufacturing/processing” to read as follows:
§ 1.500 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Environmental pathogen means a pathogen capable of surviving and persisting within the manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding environment such that food may be contaminated and may result in foodborne illness if that food is consumed without treatment to significantly minimize the environmental pathogen. Examples of environmental pathogens for the purposes of this part include Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. but do not include the spores of pathogenic sporeforming bacteria.

Harvesting applies to applies to farms and farm mixed-type facilities and means activities that are traditionally performed on farms for the purpose of removing raw agricultural commodities from the place they were grown or raised and preparing them for use as food. Harvesting is limited to activities performed on raw agricultural commodities, or on processed foods created by drying/dehydrating a raw agricultural commodity without additional manufacturing/processing, on a farm. Harvesting does not include activities that transform a raw agricultural commodity into a processed food as defined in section 201(gg) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Examples of harvesting include cutting (or otherwise separating) the edible portion of the raw agricultural commodity from the crop plant and removing or trimming part of the raw agricultural commodity (e.g., foliage, husks, roots, or stems). Examples of harvesting also include cooling, field coring, filtering, gathering, hulling, shelling, sifting, threshing, trimming of outer leaves of, and washing raw agricultural commodities grown on a farm.

Manufacturing/processing means making food from one or more ingredients, or synthesizing, preparing, treating, modifying, or manipulating food, including food crops or ingredients. Examples of manufacturing/processing activities include: Baking, boiling, bottling, canning, cooking, cooling, cutting, distilling, drying/dehydrating raw agricultural commodities to create a distinct commodity (such as drying/dehydrating grapes to produce raisins), evaporating, eviscerating, extracting juice, extruding (of animal food), formulating, freezing, grinding, homogenizing, irradiating, labeling, milling, mixing, packaging (including modified atmosphere packaging), pasteurizing, peeling, pelleting (of animal food), rendering, treating to manipulate ripening, trimming, washing, or waxing. For farms and farm mixed-type facilities, manufacturing/processing does not include activities that are part of harvesting, packing, or holding.

3. Revise the section heading of § 1.501 to read as follows:
§ 1.501 To what foods do the requirements in this subpart apply?
4. Revise the section heading and the paragraph headings in paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 1.511 to read as follows:
§ 1.511 What FSVP must I have if I am importing a food subject to certain requirements in the dietary supplement current good manufacturing practice regulation?

(a) Importers subject to certain requirements in the dietary supplement current good manufacturing practice regulation. * * *

(b) Importers whose customer is subject to certain requirements in the dietary supplement current good manufacturing practice regulation. * * *

5. In § 1.512, revise the first sentence of paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) introductory text and (c)(1)(i) and revise paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (iv) to read as follows:
§ 1.512 What FSVP may I have if I am a very small importer or I am importing certain food from certain small foreign suppliers?

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) If your foreign supplier is a qualified facility as defined by § 117.3 or § 507.3 of this chapter and you choose to comply with the requirements in this section, you must obtain written assurance, before importing the food and at least every 2 years thereafter, that the foreign supplier is producing the food in compliance with applicable FDA food safety regulations (or, when applicable, relevant laws and regulations of a country whose food safety system FDA has officially recognized as comparable or determined to be equivalent to that of the United States). * * *

(iii) If your foreign supplier is a farm that grows produce and is not a covered farm under part 112 of this chapter in accordance with § 112.4(a) of this chapter, or in accordance with §§ 112.4(b) and 112.5 of this chapter, and you choose to comply with the requirements in this section, you must obtain written assurance, before importing the produce and at least every 2 years thereafter, that the farm acknowledges that its food is subject to section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (or, when applicable, that its food is subject to relevant laws and regulations of a country whose food safety system FDA has officially recognized as comparable or determined to be equivalent to that of the United States).

(iv) If your foreign supplier is a shell egg producer that is not subject to the requirements of part 118 of this chapter because it has fewer than 3,000 laying hens and you choose to comply with the requirements in this section, you must obtain written assurance, before importing the shell eggs and at least every 2 years thereafter, that the shell egg producer acknowledges that its food is subject to section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (or, when applicable, that its food is subject to relevant laws and regulations of a country whose food safety system FDA has officially recognized as comparable or determined to be equivalent to that of the United States).

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, in approving your foreign suppliers, you must evaluate the applicable FDA food safety regulations and information relevant to the foreign supplier's compliance with those regulations, including whether the foreign supplier is the subject of an FDA warning letter, import alert, or other FDA compliance action related to food safety, and document the evaluation. * * *

Dated: April 21, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-09784 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 524 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0002] New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Changes of Sponsorship; Correction AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment; correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a document in the Federal Register of April 18, 2016 (81 FR 22520), amending the animal drug regulations to reflect application-related actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during January and February 2016. That rule included two amendatory instructions that cited incorrect sections of 21 CFR part 524.

DATES:

Effective: April 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5689, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In FR Doc. 2016-08827, appearing on page 22520 in the Federal Register of Monday, April 18, 2016, the following corrections are made:

On page 22524, in the third column, remove amendatory instructions 35 and 36.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 524

Animal drugs.

Accordingly, 21 CFR part 524 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 524—OPHTHALMIC AND TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for part 524 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 360b.

§ 524.1193 [Amended]
2. In paragraph (b)(2) of § 524.1193, remove “000859” and in its place add “016592”.
§ 524.1484k [Amended]
3. In § 524.1484k, revise the section heading to read: Neomycin and prednisolone suspension.
Dated: April 22, 2016. Tracey Forfa, Acting Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2016-09865 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [TD 9764] RIN 1545-BF39 Section 6708 Failure To Maintain List of Advisees With Respect to Reportable Transactions AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final regulations relating to the penalty under section 6708 of the Internal Revenue Code for failing to make available lists of advisees with respect to reportable transactions. Section 6708 imposes a penalty upon material advisors for failing to make available to the Secretary, upon written request, the list required to be maintained by section 6112 of the Internal Revenue Code within 20 business days after the date of such request. The final regulations primarily affect individuals and entities who are material advisors, as defined in section 6111 of the Internal Revenue Code.

DATES:

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

Applicability Date: For date of applicability see § 301.6708-1(i).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hilary March, (202) 317-5406 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-2245.

The collection of information in the final regulations is in § 301.6708-1(c)(3)(ii). This information is required for the IRS to determine whether good cause exists to allow a person affected by these regulations an extension of the legislatively established 20-business-day period to furnish a lawfully requested list to the IRS. The collection of information is voluntary to obtain a benefit. The likely respondents are persons (individuals and entities) who qualify as material advisors, as defined in section 6111, who are unable to respond to a valid and statutorily authorized section 6112 list request within the statutory period of time provided by section 6708.

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

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

Background

This document contains amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 6708 relating to the penalty for failure by a material advisor to maintain and make available a list of advisees with respect to reportable transactions. On March 8, 2013, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-160873-04) relating to the penalty under section 6708 was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 14939). A public hearing was scheduled for July 2, 2013. The IRS did not receive any requests to testify at the public hearing, and the hearing was cancelled. Two comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. After considering the comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS are adopting the proposed regulations as amended by this Treasury decision. The revisions are discussed elsewhere in this document. Additionally, minor, non-substantive edits were made to the proposed regulations to improve clarity.

Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions

In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the IRS received and considered two comments. Those comments are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

The comments covered ten areas: (1) Delivery of the list request by leaving it at the material advisor's last and usual place of abode or usual place of business; (2) the date the 20-business-day period begins in cases where the list request is mailed to the material advisor; (3) the imposition of the penalty on the day of compliance when the response is untimely; (4) extensions of time for complying with list requests; (5) reasonable cause for failure to furnish lists within the 20-business-day time period in cases where a material advisor's employee violates the material advisor's section 6112 list maintenance procedures; (6) the ordinary business care standard; (7) reliance on an independent tax professional's advice; (8) the accumulation of penalties during the IRS agent's review of an incomplete list where the material advisor fails to establish that it acted in good faith; (9) the examples provided in proposed § 301.6708-1(g) and (h); and (10) administrative review of the imposition of the penalty.

1. Comments Relating to § 301.6708-1(b)

As proposed, § 301.6708-1(b) of the regulations provided that the 20-business-day period within which the material advisor must make the list available shall begin on the first business day after the earliest of the date that the IRS (1) mails a list request by certified or registered mail, (2) hand delivers the written list request, or (3) leaves the written list request at the material advisor's last and usual place of abode or usual place of business.

A. Delivery of the List Request by Leaving It at the Material Advisor's Last and Usual Place of Abode or Usual Place of Business

One commenter recommended deleting proposed § 301.6708-1(b)(3), which allows the IRS to leave the written list request at the material advisor's last and usual place of abode or usual place of business, noting that this method of delivery did not appear in the interim guidance issued by the IRS in Notice 2004-80, 2004-2 C.B. 963. The commenter expressed a concern that the list request may be left with a child or another person who fails to deliver it to the material advisor or that it may be left on a door step and lost or destroyed before being discovered by the material advisor. If such an incident were to occur, the material advisor who did not receive a list request would be in the difficult position of proving that they never received the list request to qualify for reasonable cause. The commenter also compared the list request to a notice of deficiency, which is delivered by certified or registered mail, and to collection due process notices, which may be given in person, left at the dwelling or usual business place of the person to whom the notice is addressed, or sent by registered or certified mail. The commenter stated that a list request is more similar to a notice of deficiency than a collection due process notice because it requires affirmative action.

There is an important way in which a list request under section 6112 is dissimilar to a notice of deficiency. A taxpayer who wishes to challenge the determination in a notice of deficiency must file a petition with the United States Tax Court within 90 days of the notice date (150 days if the taxpayer is located outside of the United States). This time period cannot be altered. By contrast, if the IRS leaves the written list request at the material advisor's usual place of business, but the material advisor does not receive the list request despite the exercise of ordinary business care, the material advisor may, depending on all facts and circumstances, qualify for an extension of the 20-business-day period to furnish the list and may have reasonable cause for failing to timely furnish the list for the days the material advisor was unaware a list request had been made.

The provision allowing for delivery of the list request to the material advisor's usual place of business is necessary to facilitate the delivery of a list request. For example, this provision enables the Service to leave a list request with the administrative assistant of the person required to maintain the list. Further, this provision assists in the delivery of a list request to a material advisor who is attempting to evade delivery of the request.

Nonetheless, in light of the commenter's concerns, the final regulations narrow the scope of § 301.6708-1(b). The final regulations provide that a list request may be left at the material advisor's usual place of business and remove the language regarding leaving the list request at the material advisor's place of abode. The final regulations also provide that a list request can only be left with an individual 18 years of age or older.

B. The Date the 20-Business-Day Period Begins in Cases Where the List Request Is Mailed to the Material Advisor

The commenter also objected that, when the IRS mails the list request, the time to comply is shorter than in cases where the request is hand delivered because under § 301.6708-1(b)(1), the 20-business-day period is calculated from the date of mailing. The commenter also expressed a concern that the material advisor may have no way of determining when the IRS mailed the list request. The commenter suggested that the regulation require the list request to state the date of mailing and suggested that the 20-business-day period for making the list available begin the later of three days after the stated date of mailing or, if the material advisor can establish the date of delivery, the date of actual delivery.

With respect to the commenter's concern that the material advisor may not know the date the IRS mailed the list request, IRS employees requesting lists are expected to date the list request with the date it is mailed. Additionally, the list requests are sent by certified mail and the recipient can use the certified mail number to look up the date of mailing if the envelope containing the list request is not itself postmarked with the date of mailing.

Regarding the rule proposed by the commenter, the statutory text of section 6708 itself provides for imposition of the penalty if the material advisor fails to make the list available upon written request “within 20 business days after the date of such request.” (Emphasis added.) Were the regulations to provide for the 20-business-day period to begin three days after the date the letter was mailed, in some circumstances, the material advisor would receive more than 20 business days in which to respond to the list request.

Where the list request is mailed to the material advisor, the IRS has historically interpreted “the date of such request” to refer to the date of mailing. See Notice 2004-80, 2004-2 CB 963. This interpretation is reasonable, particularly given the requirement that material advisors maintain the list in a readily accessible form. The 20-business-day period is sufficient to accommodate normal mailing time and to leave sufficient time after receipt, in ordinary circumstances, for a material advisor to produce a list that has been maintained in a readily accessible form. Adopting the rule suggested by the commenter would complicate the rule to accommodate the unusual circumstance in which the amount of time it took for the material advisor to receive the list request made it impossible for the list to be timely furnished. In such a circumstance, however, the material advisor may, considering all facts and circumstances, be eligible for an extension of the 20-business-day period and may, considering all facts and circumstances, have reasonable cause for not providing the list within the 20-business-day period. Accordingly, this comment was not adopted.

2. Comment Relating to § 301.6708-1(e)(1) and (2): The Imposition of the Penalty on the Day of Compliance When the Response Is Untimely

As proposed, the penalty was computed under § 301.6708-1(e)(1) and (2) from the first calendar day after the period for furnishing a list in the form required by section 6112 (either the 20-business-day period following a written list request or the extension period, if extended) until, and including, the day the person's failure ends. One commenter stated that, if the list is furnished after the 20-business-day period, the day that the list is furnished should not be included in the penalty computation. The commenter further explained its interpretation that the language of section 6708(a)(1) providing that the penalty is imposed for “each day of such failure after the 20th day” means that the penalty may not be imposed on the day that the list is furnished to the IRS because on that day there was no failure to respond to the list request.

Section 6708(a)(1) provides:

If any person who is required to maintain a list under section 6112(a) fails to make such list available upon written request to the Secretary in accordance with section 6112(b) within 20 business days after the date of such request, such person shall pay a penalty of $10,000 for each day of such failure after such 20th day.

The purpose of the section 6708 penalty is to encourage voluntary compliance with the requirement to maintain section 6112 lists and timely provide those lists to the IRS. Penalizing the material advisor on the day of compliance does not significantly promote that purpose. Balancing the purpose of the penalty with the size of this particular penalty warrants adopting the comment in this case. Accordingly, § 301.6708-1(e)(1) of the regulations provides that the day the list was furnished to the IRS will not be included in the calculation of the penalty amount.

3. Comment Relating to § 301.6708-1(c): Manner of and Extensions of Time for Making a List Available

Section 301.6708-1(c)(3) of the regulations permits the IRS, in its discretion, to grant an extension of the 20-business-day period upon a showing of good cause. Under the regulations as proposed, any request for an extension had to, among other requirements, state that to the best of the person's knowledge, all information and records relating to the list under that person's possession, custody, or control have been maintained according to procedures and policies consistent with sections 6001 and 6112.

The proposed regulations contained one example illustrating the application of the § 301.6708-1(c)(3) extension provisions. See § 301.6708-1(c)(4). The example concerns a large law firm that is a material advisor and has educated its attorneys about the firm's obligations related to reportable transactions. To ensure compliance, the firm has policies in place, under which one professional will notify the firm's compliance officer about any tax engagement involving a reportable transaction and then direct a subordinate to send the documents required to be maintained under section 6112 to the compliance officer. In compiling its section 6112 list after receiving a request from the IRS, the firm discovers that one of its attorneys, who is no longer with the firm, did not provide the documentation required by the firm's policies with respect to one reportable transaction. Because the firm will have to search for responsive documents in its storage facility and contact clients for information, it will not be able to respond to the list request within 20 business days and requests a 10-day extension. In this example, the IRS grants the 10-day extension with respect to the one transaction at issue.

One commenter suggested that the IRS should also grant an extension where one of the firm's professionals failed to disclose one or more reportable transactions in contravention of established firm policy, and as a result, the firm did not know that it was a material advisor with respect to those transactions. In such a situation, the commenter suggested that the firm would need additional time to locate information. The commenter noted that the example in the proposed regulations does not cover such a situation and suggested that an additional example covering this situation be added to the regulation. To eliminate any confusion regarding the scenario posed by the commenter, an additional example addressing the commenter's concern has been added to § 301.6708-1(c)(4).

The commenter also objected to the requirement that a person requesting an extension of the 20-business-day period must state that, to the best of the person's knowledge, all information and records relating to the list under the person's possession, custody, or control have been maintained in accordance with procedures and policies that are consistent with sections 6001 and 6112. To account for the scenario in which one of a firm's professionals has failed to disclose a reportable transaction in contravention of its policy, the commenter suggested that a person should be able to request an extension under § 301.6708-1(c)(3)(ii) either by making the above statement or by providing “a detailed explanation of the procedures such person has in place to comply with the requirements of section 6112, its efforts to adhere to such procedures, and the reasons why the specific information and records sought in the request were not so maintained.”

In some situations warranting an extension, including the scenario described by the commenter and the examples set forth in § 301.6708-1(c)(4), the person requesting the extension will not be able to make the statement required by the proposed regulation. For instance, in example one of § 301.6708-1(c)(4), the firm discovers after receiving the list request that a subordinate did not provide the documentation relating to a reportable transaction to the compliance officer, in contravention of the firm's policy. Accordingly, at the time of the extension request, the firm is aware that the records relating to at least one transaction have not been maintained in accordance with its procedures and policies. The firm, therefore, cannot state that all records relating to the list have been maintained in accordance with its list maintenance procedures and policies, as the proposed regulation required. The final regulation is changed so that material advisors can make the statements required by § 301.6708-1(c)(3)(ii) in order to request an extension even if, after receiving a list request, they discover a failure to comply with their list maintenance procedures, as long as, to the best of their knowledge as of the date of the list request, all information and records relating to the list had been maintained in accordance with procedures and policies consistent with sections 6001 and 6112.

The specific language suggested by the commenter, however, is very broad. Persons who are required to maintain a list under section 6112 are required and expected to maintain the list in a readily accessible form. See § 301.6112-1(d). To comply with section 6112, ordinary business care requires a person, upon discovering any failure relating to the list, to take immediate steps to correct the failure. The commenter's suggested language could allow an extension to be obtained by a person who became aware of a failure relating to the list prior to a request for the list, but who has not corrected it or has otherwise not exercised ordinary business care or made a good-faith effort to comply with section 6112 by maintaining the list in a readily accessible form.

Therefore, although the specific language suggested by the commenter was not adopted, § 301.6708-1(c)(3)(ii) has been amended as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule to account for the circumstance identified by the commenter.

In addition, language is added to section 301.6708-1(c)(2) to clarify that making the list available through inspection includes allowing the IRS to copy the list. This is consistent with the underlying requirement to furnish the list under section 6112. See section 301.6112-1(e)(1) (providing that each component of the list must be furnished to the IRS in a format that enables the IRS to determine without undue delay or difficulty the information required to be included in the list). This clarification is also consistent with case law concluding that inspecting or examining includes copying documents. See, e.g., Westside Ford, Inc. v. United States, 206 F.2d 627, 634 (9th Cir. 1953) (holding that the right to inspect documents under 50 U.S.C. 2155(a) includes the right to make copies); Boren v. Tucker, 239 F.2d 767, 771-72 (9th Cir. 1956) (holding that the right to examine documents under section 7602 includes the right to make copies); McGarry v. Riley, 363 F.2d 421, 424 (1st Cir. 1966) (holding that a court order enforcing a summons under section 7602 necessarily allowed the Service to make copies, regardless of whether the order specifically allowed copying).

4. Comments Relating to § 301.6708-1(g): Reasonable Cause for Failure To Furnish Lists Within the 20-Business-Day Time Period

Section 6708(a)(2) provides an exception to the penalty for any day in which the failure to furnish the list is due to reasonable cause. Section 301.6708-1(g) describes reasonable cause for purposes of the section 6708 penalty. Reasonable cause is determined on a case-by-case and day-by-day basis, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances. Factors considered in determining the existence of reasonable cause include, but are not limited to, good-faith efforts to comply with section 6112, exercise of ordinary business care, supervening events beyond the person's control, and reliance on an independent tax professional's advice. Section 301.6708-1(g) also provides examples illustrating the application of the reasonable cause provisions.

A. Reasonable Cause Where an Employee of the Material Advisor Violates the Material Advisor's Section 6112 List Maintenance Procedures

One commenter stated that the IRS should find reasonable cause where an employee of the material advisor failed to disclose one or more reportable transactions in contravention of the firm's established list maintenance procedures, and as a result, the firm did not know that it was a material advisor with respect to those transactions. The commenter suggested expanding the illustrations of reasonable cause to include this situation.

Similarly, the other commenter was concerned by a lack of clarity as to how the actions of a material advisor's employees, shareholders, partners, or agents would affect the material advisor's reasonable cause claim when the material advisor is a law firm, accounting firm, or similar entity. The commenter noted that, under § 301.6111-3(b)(2)(iii)(A), these individuals are generally not treated as material advisors, and their tax statements are generally attributed to their employers, corporations, partnerships, or principals. The commenter suggested that proposed § 301.6708-1(g)(3) be revised to clarify that a material advisor may still show reasonable cause even if one or more employees of the material advisor did not exercise ordinary business care and would not have reasonable cause, as long as the material advisor had appropriate procedures in place, the failure represents an isolated incident, and the material advisor acted promptly to correct the error upon learning of the employee's non-compliance. The commenter also suggested adding an example to proposed § 301.6708-1(g) similar to that in proposed § 301.6708-1(c)(4), which states that under the given circumstances, a material advisor should be granted an extension despite a former subordinate's failure to comply with its list maintenance policy.

Proposed § 301.6708-1(g)(3) stated that ordinary business care may be established by showing that the material advisor established and adhered to list maintenance procedures reasonably designed and implemented to ensure compliance with section 6112. Proposed section 301.6708-1(g)(3) also stated that, considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, a material advisor may still be able to demonstrate ordinary business care despite an isolated and inadvertent failure related to the list if the material advisor shows that steps were taken to correct any such failure upon discovery. Section 301.6708-1(g)(3) is intended to capture failures that may be caused by the actions of an individual employee, shareholder, partner, or agent of the material advisor when the material advisor is a law firm or other entity. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, a material advisor in the situations described by the commenters may be able to establish that it exercised ordinary business care and made good-faith efforts to comply with section 6112, and therefore had reasonable cause under the regulations as already proposed. Accordingly, the comment was not adopted to the extent that it recommended modifying proposed § 301.6708-1(g)(3). To respond to the commenter's concerns, however, a new example 5 has been added to § 301.6708-1(h)(3), in which a material advisor is determined to have reasonable cause despite a former employee's failure to comply with its list maintenance procedures.

B. The Ordinary Business Care Standard

As proposed, § 301.6708-1(g)(3) provides, in relevant part: “The exercise of ordinary business care may constitute reasonable cause. To show ordinary business care, the person may, for example, show that it established, and adhered to, procedures reasonably designed and implemented to ensure compliance with the requirements of section 6112.” One commenter stated that, absent extraordinary circumstances, establishing and adhering to reasonable compliance procedures should always result in a finding of reasonable cause. The commenter suggested revising the wording of proposed § 301.6708-1(g)(3) to provide that “[t]he exercise of ordinary business care shall constitute reasonable cause.”

Reasonable cause is determined on a case-by-case and day-by-day basis, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances. A material advisor will not be able to establish reasonable cause if the material advisor did not exercise ordinary business care. However, ordinary business care is not the only factor that must be taken into account to determine whether the failure was due to reasonable cause. The wording suggested by the commenter does not acknowledge that the determination of whether a material advisor establishes reasonable cause is based on all relevant facts and circumstances, including not only whether the material advisor exercised ordinary business care in maintaining a readily producible list but also whether the material advisor, upon receiving the list request, tried in good faith to make the list available within the 20-business-day period (or extended period). In fact, the suggested wording would elevate the exercise of ordinary business care above all other facts and circumstances that should be taken into account in determining reasonable cause. Although exercising ordinary business care is important, standing alone, it is not sufficient to demonstrate reasonable cause. Accordingly, this comment was not adopted.

C. Reliance on the Advice of an Independent Tax Professional

Proposed, § 301.6708-1(g)(5) provided in relevant part that a person may rely on the advice of an independent tax professional to establish reasonable cause. One commenter expressed concern that the IRS and courts would interpret this provision in such a way as to presume that a material advisor could not establish reasonable cause if it did not consult with an independent tax professional. The commenter objected to any such presumption on the basis that most material advisors have the necessary background and experience to evaluate their list maintenance obligations without seeking outside advice. The commenter suggested that the proposed regulations be amended to explicitly reject any such presumption.

Under proposed § 301.6708-1(g)(1), the determination of whether a material advisor had reasonable cause is made on a case-by-case and day-by-day basis, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances, the most important of which are those that reflect the extent of the person's good-faith efforts to comply with section 6112. Reasonable cause under proposed § 301.6708-1(g)(5) is not conditioned on seeking the advice of an independent tax professional. Rather, that section describes how reliance on an independent tax professional will be taken into account for purposes of determining whether a failure was due to reasonable cause. However, to alleviate the concern and clarify that a material advisor is not required to obtain advice from an independent tax professional to establish reasonable cause, the following sentence has been added to the final regulations under § 301.6708-(g)(5)(i): “Independent tax professional advice is not required to establish reasonable cause, and the failure to obtain advice from an independent tax professional does not preclude a finding of reasonable cause if, based on the totality of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, reasonable cause has been established.”

The commenter also suggested supplementing § 301.6708-1(g)(5)(i) with language indicating that reasonable reliance on the advice of an independent tax professional is to be evaluated based on the knowledge and good faith of the individual employee or employees primarily responsible for compliance procedures for the particular transaction at issue, rather than other employees at the firm.

Proposed, § 301.6708-1(g)(5)(i) provided that, to establish reasonable cause, a material advisor's reliance on the advice of an independent tax professional must be reasonable and in good faith, in light of all the other facts and circumstances. While the knowledge and good faith of the individual employees primarily responsible for compliance procedures for the particular transaction is certainly relevant to the determination of whether the material advisor reasonably relied on the advice of an independent tax professional, the knowledge and good faith of those employees' supervisors or other individuals also may be relevant, depending on the specific facts and circumstances. Accordingly, this comment was not adopted.

D. Examples

Proposed section 301.6708-1(g)(6) contains examples illustrating the application of the reasonable cause provisions. Example 3, Example 5, and Example 6 of proposed § 301.6708-1(g)(6) reference a particular technology for saving the data to a CD-ROM, and reference sending the paper documents to an off-site storage facility. The examples have been updated to remove any implication that any particular technology is specifically approved or required under the regulations, or that the regulations require storage of original records in both electronic and paper format. These changes are not intended to change the principles illustrated in by these examples.

5. Comments Relating to § 301.6708-1(h)(2) and (h)(3)

Section 301.6708-1(h)(2) contains special considerations for determining reasonable cause for the period after the material advisor has furnished a list and before the IRS has informed the material advisor of any identified failures in the list. Section 301.6708-1(h)(3) provides examples illustrating the application of this provision. Some of these examples involve situations where the material advisor has omitted information from the list.

A. Period of IRS Review

Proposed section 301.6708-1(h)(2) provided that if the material advisor establishes that it acted in good faith in its efforts to fully comply with the requirements of section 6112, the material advisor will be deemed to have reasonable cause for the days between when the material advisor furnished the list to the IRS and when the IRS informs the material advisor of any identified failures in the list. If the material advisor does not establish that it acted in good faith, the IRS will not consider the time it takes to review a list as a factor in determining whether the material advisor has reasonable cause for that period. One commenter suggested that the penalty should stop accruing once the list has been furnished to the IRS and a specified reasonable review period has passed. The commenter also stated that the penalty should not start accruing again until the IRS has notified the material advisor that the list appears deficient.

Section 301.6708-1(h)(2) was included in the proposed regulations because a material advisor who has acted in good faith and has produced what it believes to be a complete and timely list has no reason to believe that the list is incomplete until the IRS informs that material advisor of any identified failure. Therefore, for a material advisor who acted in good faith, the proposed regulations provide that no penalty is imposed for the time it takes for the IRS to review the list and inform the material advisor of any identified failure, regardless of the length of time it takes the IRS to complete this process.

The rule in proposed § 301.6708-1(h)(2) is more favorable to material advisors who have acted in good faith than the rule suggested by the commenter. Under the commenter's suggestion, a material advisor who furnished the list in good faith does not get the benefit of being deemed to have reasonable cause for the period of IRS review. However, if the commenter's suggestion is adopted, a material advisor who did not furnish a list in good faith would have reasonable cause for at least some of the time that the IRS is reviewing the list regardless of whether the facts and circumstances support reasonable cause. Consequently, the comment was not adopted.

Nevertheless, the Treasury Department and the IRS are sensitive to the commenter's concerns. In addition, it is in the IRS's interest to review lists furnished by material advisors in a timely manner so that information contained on the lists can be used as intended to assist the IRS in identifying taxpayers who participated in abusive and potentially abusive tax shelters. Therefore, the IRS will take reasonable steps to timely review lists and notify material advisors of identified failures in a timely manner.

B. Omissions From the List

In Example 1 of proposed § 301.6708-1(h)(3), a supervisor within the material advisor organization carefully reviewed the list before furnishing it to the IRS, and in Example 3 of proposed § 301.6708-1(h)(3), a supervisor within the material advisor organization did not review the list. One commenter suggested that these examples be modified or supplemented to eliminate what the commenter perceived to be an implication that review of a list by a supervisor within the material advisor organization would reasonably be expected to detect omissions from the list and to specify that a material advisor can demonstrate reasonable cause for omitting a transaction or advisee even if a supervisor's review did not identify the omissions. While agreeing that review of the list before submission to the IRS is appropriate, the commenter stated that this review should not be a factor in determining whether a material advisor had reasonable cause.

The commenter also suggested that in many cases in which a material advisor omits a transaction or advisee from a list, the omission may be due to a mistaken application of the reportable transaction rules or an inadvertent failure. The commenter observed that while three of the examples in proposed § 301.6708-1(g) and (h) involve the omission of specific advisees from a list, none of these examples involves a finding that the material advisor had reasonable cause. The commenter suggested adding an example to either proposed subsection (g) or (h) in which the material advisor had reasonable cause for omitting the transaction or advisee from the list.

In looking at all of the facts and circumstances surrounding a material advisor's efforts to comply with section 6112, review of the list by a supervisor or some other person of authority or experience within the material advisor organization before submission of the list to the IRS is merely one factor to be taken into account to determine whether the material advisor has demonstrated reasonable cause. A failure to detect omissions or other failings in the list does not preclude a finding of reasonable cause. That point is already set forth in Example 1 of proposed § 301.6708-1(h)(3), in which the supervisor's review of the list did not detect that the material advisor had furnished a draft copy of a tax opinion rather than the final document, but under the facts stated in the example, the material advisor was found to have reasonable cause.

However, to eliminate any confusion and to respond to the concerns expressed by the commenter, a new Example 5 has been added to § 301.6708-1(h)(3), in which the supervisor's review of the list did not detect that the material advisor had omitted a transaction from the list, and under the facts stated in the example, the material advisor was found to have reasonable cause.

6. Comment Relating to Administrative Review

One commenter recommended that the regulations provide for administrative review in IRS Appeals of all issues pertaining to the applicability and amount of the penalty, including whether an extension should have been granted and whether reasonable cause exists, before paying the penalty. There are currently administrative procedures providing material advisors with an opportunity for prepayment review of the penalty by Appeals. See IRM 4.32.2.11.7.2. Under those procedures, the material advisor has 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and demand for payment of the section 6708 penalty to request administrative review by IRS Appeals. A material advisor does not have to pay any portion of the section 6708 penalty as a condition of requesting administrative review. Therefore, because the IRM already provides the material advisor with an opportunity for administrative review of the assessment of the penalty prior to payment, this comment was not adopted.

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 also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations.

It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the collection of information described under the heading “Paperwork Reduction Act” only affects persons who qualify as material advisors as defined in section 6111, who are statutorily required by section 6112 to maintain and furnish the underlying documents and information upon which the collection of information is based, and who are unable to meet the section 6708 statutorily provided period of time for furnishing these documents and information. Moreover, the collection of information is voluntary to receive a benefit and requiring those persons to report the information described above imposes only a minimal burden in time or expense. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) is not required.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.

Drafting Information

The principal author of these regulations is Hilary March of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:

PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 301.6708-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6708 * * *

Par. 2. Section 301.6708-1 is added to read as follows:
§ 301.6708-1 Failure to maintain lists of advisees with respect to reportable transactions.

(a) In general. Any person who is required to maintain a list under section 6112 who, upon written request for the list, fails to make the list available to the Secretary within 20 business days after the date of the request shall be subject to a penalty in the amount of $10,000 for each subsequent calendar day on which the person fails to furnish a list containing the information and in the form required by section 6112 and its corresponding regulations. The penalty will not be imposed on any particular day or days for which the person establishes that the failure to comply on that day is due to reasonable cause.

(b) Calculation of the 20-business-day period. The 20-business-day period shall begin on the first business day after the earliest of the date that the IRS—

(1) Mails a request for the list required to be maintained under section 6112(a) by certified or registered mail to the person required to maintain the list;

(2) Hand delivers the written request to the person required to maintain the list; or

(3) Leaves the written request with an individual 18 years old or older at the usual place of business of the person required to maintain the list.

(c) Making a list available. (1) A person who is required to maintain a list required by section 6112 may make the list available by mailing or delivering it to the IRS within 20 business days after the date of the list request. Section 7502 and the regulations thereunder shall apply to this section.

(2) A person who is required to maintain a list required by section 6112 may also make the list available to the IRS by making it available for inspection and copying during normal business hours, as provided by section 6112, or by another agreed-upon method, on an agreed-upon date that falls within the 20-business-day period following the list request.

(3) Extension—(i) In general. Upon a showing of good cause by the person prior to the expiration of the 20-business-day period following a list request, the IRS may, in its discretion, agree to extend the period within which to make all or part of the list available. For purposes of this paragraph, “good cause” is shown if the person establishes that the 20-business-day deadline cannot reasonably be met despite diligent efforts by the person to maintain the materials constituting a list and to make that list available to the IRS in the time and manner required by the Secretary under section 6112.

(ii) Requesting an extension. Any request for an extension of the 20-business-day period must be made in writing to the person at the IRS who requested the list. The person requesting an extension must briefly describe the information and documents that comprise the list as required by section 6112; explain the circumstances that would warrant additional time; propose a schedule to complete the production of the list; state that to the best of the person's knowledge, as of the date of the list request, all information and records relating to the list under the person's possession, custody, or control had been maintained in accordance with procedures and policies that are consistent with sections 6001 and 6112 of the Internal Revenue Code; and state that the extension request is not being made to avoid the person's list maintenance obligations imposed by section 6112 and its corresponding regulations. The IRS may, in its discretion, grant the person's extension request in full or in part. The IRS will consider whether granting an extension may impair its ability to make a timely assessment against any of the participants in the transaction associated with the requested list. The IRS will not grant an extension if it determines that a significant reason for the extension request is to delay producing the list. A pending extension request by itself does not constitute reasonable cause for purposes of section 6708.

(4) Examples. The following examples illustrate paragraph (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. These examples are intended to illustrate how the facts and circumstances in paragraph (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section may apply; in any given case, however, all of the facts and circumstances must be analyzed.

Example 1.

(i) Firm A is a large law firm that is a material advisor. Firm A conducts annual sessions to educate its professionals about reportable transactions and the firm's obligations related to those reportable transactions. Firm A instructs its professionals to provide information on tax engagements that involve reportable transactions and to provide the documents required to be maintained under sections 6001 and 6112 to Firm A's compliance officer for list maintenance purposes. Firm A's policy provides that, for each engagement involving a reportable transaction, one firm professional will send an email to the firm's compliance officer about the engagement and then direct a subordinate to send the documents required to be maintained to the firm's compliance officer. Firm A has policies and procedures in place to monitor compliance with these rules and to address non-compliance.

(ii) Firm A receives a request from the IRS for a section 6112 list. In compiling its list to turn over to the IRS during the 20-business-day period following the list request, Firm A discovers that, with respect to one reportable transaction, a subordinate did not provide the documentation required by Firm A's policy. In addition, Firm A experiences difficulty locating the required documents as both the professional and the subordinate who worked on the matter are no longer employed by Firm A, requiring the firm to undertake an extensive search for the information responsive to the list request. Firm A also seeks the information from the firm's clients. Despite these efforts, Firm A reasonably determined that it will not be able to respond timely to the request. Within the 20-business-day period, Firm A notifies the IRS, in writing, of the difficulties it is experiencing and requests an additional 10 business days to locate and produce the information for this one transaction. Within the 20-business-day period, Firm A makes all other required list information available to the IRS, together with a description of the information that is being searched for, all statements required by these regulations, and a proposed schedule to produce the missing information.

(iii) Under these circumstances, Firm A demonstrated that it could not reasonably make the portion of the list relating to the one transaction available within the 20-business-day period and thus qualified for an extension. Firm A had established policies and procedures reasonably designed and implemented to ensure and monitor compliance with the requirements of section 6112 and address non-compliance. Because the facts and circumstances indicate that Firm A made diligent efforts to maintain the materials constituting the list in a readily accessible form and as otherwise required under section 6112, the requested 10-business-day extension with respect to the portion of the list relating to the one transaction where records were not maintained in accordance with the firm's policies and procedures should be granted.

Example 2.

(i) Assume the same facts set forth in example one, except that, in the process of compiling the list to comply with the list maintenance request, Firm A first becomes aware that a firm professional did not send an email to the firm's compliance officer about a transaction subject to the list maintenance request and did not direct a subordinate to send to the firm's compliance officer the information required to be maintained with respect to the transaction. Assume further that Firm A had a robust section 6112 compliance monitoring program in place and despite this, the firm did not know that the professional did not follow firm policies and procedures with respect to this transaction. The professional who worked on the matter is no longer employed by Firm A, causing Firm A difficulty in locating the required information and in ascertaining whether the professional in question failed to comply with Firm A's list maintenance policies with respect to any other reportable transactions. Firm A is searching its records to locate information responsive to the list request and to ensure that no other reportable transactions were omitted from the list. Firm A estimates that it will take an additional 20 business days after the 20th business day to retrieve the missing information and provide IRS with the additional information responsive to the list request. Within the 20-business-day period, Firm A notifies the IRS, in writing, of the difficulties it is experiencing and requests an additional 20 business days to locate and produce the information for this one transaction and for any other reportable transactions omitted from the list as a result of the inaction by the professional in question. Within the 20-business-day period, Firm A makes all other required list information available to the IRS, together with a description of the information that is being searched for, all statements required by these regulations, and a proposed schedule to produce the missing documents.

(ii) Under these facts and circumstances, Firm A demonstrated that it could not reasonably, within the 20-business-day period, make available the portion of the list relating to one or possibly more transactions omitted from the list because of the inaction of the professional in question. Firm A therefore qualifies for an extension. Firm A had established policies and procedures reasonably designed and implemented to ensure and monitor compliance with the requirements of section 6112 and address non-compliance. Because the facts and circumstances indicate that Firm A made diligent efforts to maintain the materials constituting the list in a readily accessible form and as otherwise required under section 6112, the requested 20-business-day extension with respect to the portion of the list relating to the one known omitted transaction and to any other omitted reportable transactions resulting from the inaction of the professional in question should be granted.

(d) Failure to make list available. A failure to make the list available includes any failure to furnish the requested list to the IRS in a timely manner and in the form required under section 6112 and its corresponding regulations. Examples of failures to make a list available include instances in which a person fails to furnish any list; furnishes an incomplete list; or furnishes a list, whether or not complete, after the time required by this section.

(e) Computation of penalty—(1) In general. The penalty imposed by section 6708 accrues daily, beginning on the first calendar day after the expiration of the 20-business-day period following a written list request, and continues for each calendar day thereafter until the person's failure to furnish a list in the form required by section 6112 and its corresponding regulations ends. If the list is delivered or mailed to the IRS outside of the 20-business-day period, the penalty shall not apply on the day the list is delivered to the IRS or, if the list is mailed, the day the list is received by the IRS.

(2) Computation of penalty after grant of extension. If the IRS grants an extension of the 20-business-day period pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the penalty imposed by section 6708 accrues daily, beginning on the first calendar day after the extension period expires, and continues for each calendar day thereafter until the person's failure to furnish a list in the form required by section 6112 and its corresponding regulations ends. If the list is delivered or mailed to the IRS outside of the period of extension, the penalty shall not apply on the day the list is delivered to the IRS or, if the list is mailed, the day the list is received by the IRS.

(3) Designation agreements and concurrent application of penalty. If material advisors with respect to the same reportable transaction enter into a designation agreement pursuant to section 6112(b)(2) and § 301.6112-1(f), separate penalties will be imposed on designated material advisors and nondesignated material advisors who are parties to the designation agreement for their respective periods of failure or noncompliance with a list request. A penalty will continue to accrue against a material advisor who is a party to a designation agreement until such time when a list complying with the requirements of section 6112 and its corresponding regulations is furnished by that material advisor or any other material advisor who is a party to the designation agreement.

(4) Example. The following example illustrates paragraph (e) of this section.

Example.

The IRS hand delivers a written request for the list required to be maintained under section 6112 to Firm B, a material advisor, on Friday, March 10, 2017. Firm B must make the list available to the IRS on or before Friday, April 7, 2017, the 20th business day after the request was hand delivered. If Firm B fails to make the list available to the IRS by that day, absent reasonable cause or the IRS's grant of an extension of the response time, the $10,000-per-day penalty begins on Saturday, April 8, 2017. The $10,000 per day penalty will continue for each subsequent calendar day until Firm B makes the complete list available, except for those days for which Firm B demonstrates reasonable cause. If Firm B hand delivers a complete copy of the requested list to the IRS on the morning of Tuesday, April 11, 2017, absent reasonable cause or the IRS's prior grant of an extension for the response time, a penalty of $30,000 will be imposed upon Firm B (for April 8, 9, and 10). See paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section for an explanation of reasonable cause.

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

(1) Material advisor means a person described in section 6111 and § 301.6111-3(b).

(2) Business day means every calendar day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday within the meaning of section 7503.

(3) Reportable transaction means a transaction described in section 6707A(c)(1) and section 1.6011-4(b)(1).

(4) Listed transaction means a transaction described in section 6707A(c)(2) and § 1.6011-4(b)(2) of this chapter.

(g) Reasonable cause—general applicability—(1) Overview. The section 6708 penalty will not be imposed for any day or days for which the person shows that the failure to make a complete list available to the IRS was due to reasonable cause. The determination of whether a person had reasonable cause is made on a case-by-case and day-by-day basis, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances. Facts and circumstances relevant to a material advisor's reasonable cause for failing to make available the list on a specific day include facts and circumstances arising after the request for the list. The person's showing of reasonable cause should relate to each specific day or days for which the person failed to make available the requested list. Factors establishing reasonable cause include, but are not limited to, factors identified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section.

(2) Good-faith factors. The most important factors to establish reasonable cause are those that reflect the extent of the person's good-faith efforts to comply with section 6112. The following factors, which are not exclusive, will be considered in determining whether a person has made a good-faith effort to comply with the section 6112 requirements:

(i) The person's efforts to determine or assess its status as a material advisor as defined by section 6111;

(ii) The person's efforts to determine the information and documentation required to be maintained under section 6112;

(iii) The person's efforts to meet its obligations to maintain a readily producible list as required by section 6112;

(iv) The person's efforts, upon receiving the list request, to make the list available to the IRS within the 20-business-day period (or extended period) under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(3) of this section; and

(v) The person's efforts to ensure that the list furnished to the IRS is accurate and complete.

(3) Ordinary business care. The exercise of ordinary business care may constitute reasonable cause. To show ordinary business care, the person may, for example, show that the person established, and adhered to, procedures reasonably designed and implemented to ensure compliance with the section 6112 requirements. In all instances when ordinary business care is claimed as constituting reasonable cause, a person must show that the person took immediate steps, upon discovering any failure relating to the list, to correct the failure. A person's failure to take immediate steps to correct a failure related to the list upon discovering the failure is a factor weighing against a conclusion that the person exercised ordinary business care. Notwithstanding the occurrence of an isolated and inadvertent failure, a person still may be able to demonstrate that the person exercised ordinary business care, considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, but only if the person had established and adhered to procedures reasonably designed and implemented to ensure compliance with the section 6112 requirements.

(4) Supervening events. A person may establish reasonable cause for one or more days for which, considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, the failure to timely furnish the list required by section 6112 was due solely to a supervening event beyond the person's control. Events beyond a person's control may include fire, flood, storm, or other casualty; illness; theft; or other similarly unexpected event that damages or impairs the person's relevant business records or system for processing and providing these records, or that affects the person's ability to maintain the section 6112 list or make it available to the IRS. Reasonable cause may be established only for the period that a person who exercised ordinary business care would need to provide the list from alternative records in existence, or make the list available, under the specific facts and circumstances.

(5) Reliance on opinion or advice—(i) In general. A person may rely on an independent tax professional's advice to establish reasonable cause. The reliance, however, must be reasonable and in good faith, in light of all the other facts and circumstances. For a person to be considered to have relied on the advice, the advice must have been received by the person before the date the list is required to be made available to the IRS. If the person received advice from an independent tax professional, the person's reliance on that advice will be considered reasonable only if the independent tax professional reasonably believed that it is more likely than not that the person does not have an obligation imposed by section 6112. For example, this advice may conclude that the person is not a material advisor; that the transaction upon which the person provided material aid, assistance, or advice is not a reportable transaction for which a list was required to be maintained as of the date of the advice; that the information and documents to be produced constitute the required list; or that the information or documents withheld by the person are not required to be produced. The advice must also take into account and consider all relevant facts and circumstances, not rely on unreasonable legal or factual assumptions, not rely on or take into account the possibility that a list request may not be made, and not rely on unreasonable representations or statements of the person seeking the advice. Advice from a tax professional who is not independent may be considered in determining reasonable cause if, in light of and in relation to all the other facts and circumstances, taking into account such advice is reasonable. However, by itself, advice from a tax professional who is not independent is not sufficient to establish reasonable cause. Independent tax professional advice is not required to establish reasonable cause and the failure to obtain advice from an independent tax professional does not preclude a finding of reasonable cause if, based on the totality of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, reasonable cause has been established.

(ii) Independent tax professional. For purposes of this section, an independent tax professional is a person who is knowledgeable in the relevant aspects of Federal tax law and who is not a material advisor with respect to the specific transaction that is the subject of the list request. For advice related to a listed transaction, a person who is a material advisor with respect to any transaction that is the same as or substantially similar to the type of transaction that is the subject of the list request will not be considered an independent tax professional.

(6) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (g). These examples are intended to illustrate how the facts and circumstances in paragraphs (g)(2) through (g)(5) of this section may apply; in any given case, however, all of the facts and circumstances must be analyzed.

Example 1.

On August 11, 2017, the IRS sends a list request via certified mail to Firm C, a material advisor. Firm C consists of a sole practitioner, X, who is away from the office on vacation on this date. X has arranged for a colleague, Y, to review Firm C's mail, email, and telephone messages daily during his absence. X returns to the office the day after his vacation ends, on September 5, 2017, and immediately contacts the IRS to notify it of his absence. Firm C makes a complete list available to the IRS on September 19, 2017, 10 business days after he has returned from vacation. Firm C establishes that X was on vacation at the time the list request was sent to Firm C, and Firm C promptly furnished the requested list in a manner and time period reflecting ordinary business care and prudence upon X's return to the office. Under these circumstances, Firm C is considered to have made a good-faith effort to comply with the section 6112 requirements. Firm C has established reasonable cause for the entire period between the expiration of the 20-business-day period following the list request and the date the list was made available to the IRS. See paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section.

Example 2.

On March 3, 2017, the IRS hand delivers to Firm D, a material advisor, a list request related to a transaction believed by the IRS to have been implemented in November 2008 by a group of Firm D's clients (the advisees). Firm D's involvement in the transaction included implementing the transaction on behalf of some but not all of the advisees. Firm D timely makes the requested list available to the IRS. Upon review, the IRS determines that the information furnished by Firm D appears to be accurate, but the IRS believes that some of the information is incomplete because it does not contain information about certain individuals who were identified through other investigative means as Firm D's clients who may have engaged in the transaction. In response to a follow-up inquiry by the IRS, Firm D establishes, however, that it is not a material advisor with respect to these taxpayers. Under these circumstances, Firm D has furnished the list as required by section 6112. Because the list was complete when furnished, Firm D need not make a showing of reasonable cause. See paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

Example 3.

The IRS sends a list request by certified mail to Firm E, a material advisor. Firm E maintains the materials responsive to the list request on a portable data storage device. Under Firm E's established procedures for maintaining section 6112 lists, once the transaction is completed, paper documents are scanned and saved electronically according to Firm E's records management procedures. Under Firm E's records management procedures, after the scanning process is completed, Firm E sends the paper documents to an off-site storage facility. Three days before the 20th business day following the date of the written request, the electronic data is permanently destroyed. Firm E contacts the IRS representative listed as a contact person on the section 6112 list request to advise him that the relevant data was permanently destroyed. Firm E establishes that it exercised ordinary business care but that the data was nevertheless destroyed due to circumstances outside of its control. Under these circumstances, Firm E has reasonable cause for the period of time that Firm E cannot respond to the list request due to circumstances out of Firm E's control. The reasonable cause exception, however, will only be available to Firm E for the period of time that a person who exercises ordinary business care would need to obtain the materials that are part of the list, including in this case paper documents from the off-site storage facility, and furnish the list to the IRS. See paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) of section.

Example 4.

On February 2, 2017, the IRS hand delivers a list request to Firm F, a material advisor. Firm F filed with the IRS the disclosure statement required by section 6111 for the reportable transaction that is the subject of the list request but did not maintain the section 6112 list documentation in a readily accessible format after filing the section 6111 statement. On March 3, 2017, the 20th business day (due to the Presidents' Day holiday) after the list request is delivered to Firm F, Firm F contacts the IRS to ask for additional time to comply with the list request, stating that it could not gather the list information together in 20 business days. Because Firm F is not able to show that it made diligent efforts to maintain the materials constituting the list in a readily accessible form, the IRS should not grant Firm F an extension of time. See paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Further, Firm F does not have reasonable cause because it has failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to comply with the section 6112 requirements and ordinary business care. See paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section.

Example 5.

On August 11, 2017, the IRS sends a list request, via certified mail, to Firm G, a material advisor. Firm G consists of a sole practitioner, P. Firm G maintains the materials responsive to the list request electronically. Generally, under Firm G's records management procedures, once a transaction is completed, the documents related to that transaction are scanned and then saved electronically consistent with IRS guidance on maintaining books and records in electronic form. P is aware of the list request but ignores it. On September 24, 2017, the 13th calendar day after the 20-business-day period following the list request (due to the Labor Day holiday), P suffers a temporary but debilitating illness that lasts 22 days. Following the illness, P immediately returns to work. After returning to work, P continues to ignore the list request. In this situation, the facts and circumstances indicate that Firm G does not have reasonable cause for any day in which there was a failure to make the list available to the IRS, including the 22 days due to the intervening event, because the failure was not due solely to the supervening event occurring on September 24, 2017. Firm G did not make a good-faith effort to make the list available to the IRS before or after the supervening event occurred. Firm G is liable for the $10,000 per day penalty from the first day following the expiration of the 20-business-day period until but not including the day that Firm G furnishes the list to the IRS. See paragraphs (g)(2) and (4) of this section.

Example 6.

On August 11, 2017, the IRS sends a list request, via certified mail, to Firm H, a material advisor. Firm H, consists of a sole practitioner, P. Firm H maintains the materials responsive to the list request electronically. Generally, under Firm H's records management procedures, once the transaction is completed, the documents are scanned and then saved electronically consistent with IRS guidance on maintaining books and records in electronic form. P is aware of the list request and begins compiling the documents to respond to the IRS within the 20-business-day period ending on September 11, 2017 (due to the Labor Day holiday). Before responding to the list request, P suffers a temporary but debilitating illness on September 3, 2017, that lasts through September 19, 2017. Upon returning to work on September 20, 2017, P contacts the IRS to explain that P experienced a temporary but debilitating illness from September 3, 2017, through September 19, 2017, and that P has returned to the office and intends to furnish the list to the IRS within a short period of time. Firm H furnishes the list to the IRS on September 22, 2017. In this situation, the facts and circumstances indicate that Firm H has reasonable cause for the period from September 12, 2017 until September 21, 2017, attributable to P's illness. The failure to furnish the list in a timely fashion was solely attributable to the supervening event occurring on September 3, 2017, and Firm H promptly furnished the requested list in a manner and time period reflecting ordinary business care upon P's return to the office. Firm H is considered to have made a good-faith effort to comply with the section 6112 requirements. Firm H has established reasonable cause for the entire period between the expiration of the 20-business-day period following the list request and the date Firm H furnished the list to the IRS. See paragraphs (g)(2) and (4) of this section.

Example 7.

Firm I receives a list request for transactions that are the same or substantially similar to the listed transaction described in Notice 2002-21, 2002-1 CB 730. Firm I will be considered a material advisor with respect to a particular transaction for which it provided advice if the transaction is the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 2002-21. Firm I, however, is unsure whether the transaction is the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in this Notice. Firm I obtains an opinion from Firm L, a law firm, on this issue. P, a partner in Firm L, provided tax advice to clients who invested in other Notice 2002-21 transactions, including how to report the purported tax benefits from the transaction on their income tax returns, and Firm L is a material advisor with respect to those transactions. Because Firm L is a material advisor with respect to the type of transaction that is the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 2002-21, Firm L is not considered an independent tax professional under paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section. Therefore, Firm I cannot rely on advice provided by Firm L to establish reasonable cause under this paragraph (g). The IRS may consider Firm L's advice in determining reasonable cause in light of other facts and circumstances, but Firm L's advice, without more, is not sufficient to establish reasonable cause because P is not an independent tax professional under paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section.

Example 8.

Firm J, a law firm, provides advice to various clients of the firm regarding the potential tax benefits of a reportable transaction under § 1.6011-4(b)(5) of this chapter (involving a section 165 loss) and is a material advisor with respect to that transaction. Firm J also provides advice to Firm M, an accounting firm, regarding the same transaction. Firm M then advises various Firm M clients regarding this same transaction, and is a material advisor. The transaction is not a listed transaction. Firm N, a law firm that is not associated with Firm J and has not provided advice with respect to the same transaction to Firm M, has provided advice to its own clients regarding other transactions subject to § 1.6011-4(b)(5) of this chapter, but not the particular transaction that was the subject of Firm J's advice to Firm M. The IRS hand delivers a list request to Firm M, the subject of which is the transaction regarding which Firm J provided advice to Firm M. Before the expiration of the 20-business-day period, Firm M seeks advice from Firm J and Firm N about the propriety of withholding certain documents related to the transaction. Because Firm J provided advice with respect to the particular transaction that is the subject of the list request, Firm J is not an independent tax professional under paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section. Although Firm N has provided advice on a transaction that is considered a reportable transaction under § 1.6011-4(b)(5) of this chapter, Firm N is considered to be an independent tax professional under paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section because Firm N did not provide material assistance with respect to the particular transaction that is the subject of the list request.

(h) Reasonable cause—special considerations—(1) Material advisor no longer in existence. If a material advisor has dissolved, been liquidated, or otherwise is no longer in existence, the person required by section 6112 to maintain the list (the “responsible person”) is subject to the penalty for failing to make the list available. In considering whether a responsible person or successor in interest has reasonable cause for any failure to timely make the list available to the IRS, the IRS will consider all of the facts and circumstances, including those facts and circumstances relating to the dissolution, liquidation, and winding up of the original material advisor's business and any efforts the original material advisor made to comply with the section 6112 requirements before the dissolution or liquidation. When appropriate or applicable, due diligence, if any, performed by a responsible person or successor in interest will be considered, and due consideration will be given for acts taken by that person to minimize the potential for violating the section 6112 requirements.

(2) Review by IRS. Whether reasonable cause exists for a period of time will be determined based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, including facts and circumstances arising after the request for the list. If a material advisor establishes that, in its efforts to comply with the provisions of section 6112 and its corresponding regulations, it acted in good faith, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the material advisor will be deemed to have reasonable cause for the periods of time the IRS takes to review a furnished list for compliance with the section 6112 requirements and to inform the material advisor of any identified failures in the list. If the material advisor does not establish that it acted in good faith the IRS will not consider the time it takes to review the list or inform the material advisor of identified failures as a factor in determining whether the material advisor has reasonable cause for that period.

(3) Examples. The following examples illustrate paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

Example 1.

On February 2, 2017, the IRS hand delivers a list request to Firm O, a material advisor. On March 3, 2017, the 20th business day (due to the Presidents' Day holiday) after the list request is delivered to Firm O, Firm O sends a list to the IRS that was contemporaneously prepared after Firm O issued advice with respect to the reportable transaction and continuously maintained in accordance with the requirements of section 6112 and the related regulations. Before sending the list, a supervisor at Firm O carefully reviewed the list to verify that it was comprehensive and accurate. The IRS completes its review on March 23, 2017, and determines that the list is not complete because Firm O furnished a draft copy of the tax opinion, rather than the final document, which Firm O had mistakenly misfiled. After Firm O is notified of the missing information, Firm O immediately furnishes a complete copy of the final version of the tax opinion. Firm O made a good-faith effort to comply with the section 6112 requirements, including its efforts to ensure that the list that was furnished to the IRS was accurate and complete. Firm O has reasonable cause for the entire period between the expiration of the 20-business-day period following the list request and the date it furnished the complete list to the IRS.

Example 2.

On February 2, 2017, the IRS hand delivers a list request to Firm P, a material advisor. Firm P's involvement in the reportable transaction included implementing the transaction on behalf of some but not all of Firm P's clients. On March 3, 2017, the 20th business day (due to the Presidents' Day holiday) after the list request is delivered to Firm P, Firm P sends the list to the IRS. The IRS completes its review on March 23, 2017. The IRS believes the client list is incomplete because it does not contain information about certain individuals who were identified through other investigative means as clients of Firm P who may have engaged in the transaction. On March 27, 2017, in response to a follow-up inquiry by the IRS, Firm P establishes that it is not a material advisor with respect to these taxpayers. Therefore, the March 3, 2017 list was complete and accurate when first furnished. Under these circumstances, Firm P has timely furnished the list as required by section 6112. Because Firm P complied with the requirements of section 6112 no penalty applies, and Firm P does not need to establish reasonable cause for the period from March 4, 2017, through March 27, 2017, when the IRS was reviewing the list.

Example 3.

On February 2, 2017, the IRS hand delivers a list request to Firm Q, a material advisor. On March 3, 2017, the 20th business day (due to the Presidents' Day holiday) after the list request is delivered to Firm Q, Firm Q sends the list to the IRS. Firm Q had not maintained a list contemporaneously after issuing the advice with respect to the reportable transaction, and created the list during the 20 business days before providing the list to the IRS. To meet the 20-business-day deadline, a supervisor did not review the final list before sending it to the IRS. The IRS completes its review on March 23, 2017, and determines that the list is not complete because it does not include 15 persons for whom Firm Q acted as a material advisor with respect to the reportable transaction. Firm Q furnishes the additional information on March 27, 2017. Because Firm Q is not able to show that it made diligent efforts to maintain the materials constituting the list in a readily accessible form and that it made a reasonable effort to ensure that the list that was furnished to the IRS was accurate and complete, Firm Q cannot establish that it exhibited a good-faith effort to comply with the section 6112 requirements. Firm Q does not have reasonable cause for its failure to furnish the complete list from March 4, 2017, through March 26, 2017.

Example 4.

Within the 20-business-day period following a list request, Firm R sends four boxes of documents comprising the required list to the IRS using a commercial delivery service. The IRS receives only three of the boxes because box 4 was erroneously self-addressed using Firm R's office address. Box 4 arrives at Firm R's office on January 6, 2017, the 2nd calendar day after the 20th business day after the list request was made. Firm R immediately recognizes its clerical error, promptly contacts the IRS, and resends the original and unopened box 4, properly addressed, to the IRS together with documentation supporting the error. The IRS receives box 4 on January 9, 2017. Under these circumstances, Firm R has reasonable cause for the late delivery of box 4 because it made a good-faith attempt to timely comply with the list request and immediately corrected an inadvertent error upon its discovery. As a result, no penalty will be imposed based on the delay in providing box 4. If, after inspection, the IRS determines that, even with the contents of box 4, the list is incomplete or defective, Firm R must establish reasonable cause for the incomplete nature of the list or the defect to avoid imposition of a penalty for the period beginning January 5, 2017, until but not including the day that Firm R furnishes the list to the IRS.

Example 5.

(i) Firm S is a large law firm that is a material advisor. Firm S conducts annual sessions to educate its professionals about reportable transactions and the firm's obligations related to those reportable transactions. Firm S instructs its professionals to provide information on tax engagements that involve reportable transactions and to provide the documents required to be maintained under section 6112 to Firm S's compliance officer for list maintenance purposes. Firm S's policy provides that, for each engagement involving a reportable transaction, one firm professional will send an email to the firm's compliance officer about the engagement and then direct a subordinate to send to the firm's compliance officer the documents required to be maintained.

(ii) Firm S receives a request from the IRS for a section 6112 list. In compiling its list to turn over to the IRS during the 20-business-day period, Firm S asks all professionals to ensure that they have reported all engagements involving a reportable transaction to the firm's compliance officer. Before submission to the IRS, a Firm S supervisor reviews the list to ensure completeness. Firm S has no reason to know of any deficiencies, and in compiling its list, Firm S discovers no deficiencies.

(iii) Upon review of the list, the IRS determines that the information furnished by Firm S appears to be accurate, but the IRS believes that some of the information is incomplete because it does not contain information about an individual who may have engaged in the transaction and who was identified through other investigative means as Firm S's client. In response to a follow-up inquiry by the IRS, Firm S immediately reviews its files and discovers that a former Firm S professional, who is no longer employed by Firm S, provided material advice to the individual with respect to carrying out a reportable transaction, but did not send an email to the firm's compliance officer about the transaction or direct a subordinate to send the documents required to be maintained to the firm's compliance officer. Firm S immediately furnishes the missing information and documents related to the identified omission to the IRS.

(iv) Firm S establishes that the professional in question ordinarily complied with Firm S's list maintenance procedures and that Firm S had no reason to know of this one omission or to suspect that the professional had failed to report any reportable transactions to the firm's compliance officer in accordance with the firm's policies. Firm S also immediately undertakes a thorough search of its electronic and paper files to locate any additional reportable transactions relating to the professional in question that may have been omitted from the list. Under these circumstances, Firm S has demonstrated that it has acted in good faith in its efforts to comply with section 6112 and is deemed to have reasonable cause for the period of time the IRS took to review the furnished list and to inform the material advisor of the identified failure in the list. See paragraph (h)(2) of this section. The reasonable cause exception, however, will only be available to Firm S with respect to the omission identified by the IRS for the period of time that a person who exercises ordinary business care would need to obtain the information and documents related to the identified omission. See paragraph (g)(3) of this section. With respect to any other omissions related to the same professional and not identified by the IRS, the reasonable cause exception will only be available to Firm S for the period of time that a person who exercises ordinary business care would need to ascertain whether any other reportable transactions were omitted from the list and to obtain the information and documents related to any such omissions. See paragraph (g)(3) of this section.

(i) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to all requests for lists required to be maintained under section 6112, including lists that persons were required to maintain under section 6112(a) as in effect before October 22, 2004, made on or after April 28, 2016.

John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: March 22, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-09765 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0054] Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks; Allegheny River Mile 0.2 to 0.8; Pittsburgh, PA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks on the Allegheny River, from mile 0.2 to 0.8, extending the entire width of the river to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters. This rule is effective following certain home games throughout the Major League Baseball season, including post-season home games if the Pittsburgh Pirates make the playoffs. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, Line No. 1 will be enforced for the Pittsburgh Pirates Season Fireworks as identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below with dates and times.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, Line No. 1 from 8:45 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on the following dates: April 16 and 30, May 19, June 11, July 21, August 20, September 8, and during the 3 hours following post-season home games, should the Pittsburgh Pirates make the playoffs, in October and November, 2016. Should inclement weather require rescheduling, the safety zone will be effective following games on a rain date to occur within 48 hours of the scheduled date. This action is being taken to provide for safety of life on navigable waters during a fireworks display taking place on and over the waterway. These regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, under 33 CFR 165.801. As specified in § 165.801, entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

Dated: March 30, 2016. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2016-09990 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter IV [CFDA Number: 84.420A; Docket ID ED-2015-OCTAE-0095] Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth AGENCY:

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

SUMMARY:

The Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education (Assistant Secretary) announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Performance Partnership Pilots (P3) for Disconnected Youth competition. The Assistant Secretary may use the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions for fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We take this action in order to support the identification of strong and effective pilots that are likely to achieve significant improvements in educational, employment, and other key outcomes for disconnected youth.

DATES:

Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are effective May 31, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Braden Goetz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11141, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7405 or by email: [email protected]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Assistant Secretary announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Performance Partnership Pilots (P3) for Disconnected Youth competition. The Assistant Secretary may use the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions for fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We take this action in order to support the identification of strong and effective pilots that are likely to achieve significant improvements in educational, employment, and other key outcomes for disconnected youth.

Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action

This regulatory action announces 13 priorities, 7 application requirements, 4 program requirements, 13 definitions, and 7 selection criteria that may be used for P3 competitions for FY 2015 and later years.

Costs and Benefits: The Department of Education (Department) believes that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs, which we believe will be minimal. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering P3. The benefits of the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are that they would promote the efficient and effective use of the P3 authority. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NFP) for a more detailed discussion of costs and benefits.

Purpose of Program: P3, first authorized by Congress for FY 2014 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (2014 Appropriations Act) and reauthorized for FY 2015 by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (2015 Appropriations Act) and for FY 2016 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (2016 Appropriations Act) (together, the Acts), authorize the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,1 and Justice,2 the Corporation for National and Community Service and the Institute of Museum and Library Services (collectively, the Agencies), to enter into Performance Partnership Agreements (performance agreements) with State, local, or tribal governments to provide additional flexibility in using certain of the Agencies' discretionary funds, including competitive and formula grant funds, across multiple Federal programs. The authority enables pilot sites to test innovative, outcome-focused strategies to achieve significant improvements in educational, employment, and other key outcomes for disconnected youth using new flexibility to blend existing Federal funds and to seek waivers of associated program requirements. Section 526(a)(2), Division H of the 2014 Appropriations Act states that “ `[t]o improve outcomes for disconnected youth' means to increase the rate at which individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 (who are low-income and either homeless, in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, unemployed, or not enrolled in or at risk of dropping out of an educational institution) achieve success in meeting educational, employment, or other key goals.”

1 The Department of Housing and Urban Development was first authorized to enter into performance agreements by the 2016 Appropriations Act.

2 The Department of Justice was first authorized to enter into performance agreements by the 2015 Appropriations Act.

Program Authority: Section 524 of Division G and section 219 of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and section 219 of Division B, section 525 of Division H, and section 242 of Division L of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113).

We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) in the Federal Register on October 22, 2015 (80 FR 63975). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. In response to public comment, this notice reduces burden on applicants by removing several application requirements that had been proposed in the NPP. This NFP also revises the priority for disconnected youth who are unemployed and out-of-school (Priority 4) to limit the priority to those unemployed and out-of-school youth who face significant barriers to accessing education and employment. Additionally, this NFP revises the priorities for projects designed to improve outcomes for subpopulations of high-need disconnected youth (i.e., youth who are unemployed and out of school, youth who are English Learners (ELs), youth with a disability, homeless youth, youth in foster care, youth involved in the justice system, and youth who are immigrants or refugees) to specify that, in order to meet the priority, a project must serve the particular subpopulation identified in the priority and be likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for the subpopulation. Finally, this NFP establishes an additional priority for projects that serve disconnected youth who are pregnant or parenting and that are likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 11 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

General

Comment: One commenter recommended that we streamline and simplify the application process to permit applicants to submit brief letters that describe their requests for waivers in lieu of a formal application that meets the requirements and addresses the selection criteria proposed in the NPP. Two commenters expressed concern about the length of the selection process that identified the FY 2014 P3 pilots; one of these commenters recommended that, going forward, pilots be selected within one month of the application deadline.

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' concerns about the length and structure of the application and selection processes. In fact, many of the changes from the first competition that were proposed in the NPP were intended to streamline and simplify those processes. As we note later in our discussion of the comments on the proposed application requirements, the NFP makes additional changes to the application requirements with that same goal. We believe this will make the application process clearer and easier for applicants, and also shorten the timeline for the selection process.

However, we also note the importance of a thorough review of applications and engagement with potential pilots to ensure we collect all information required to complete a performance agreement. Such a review is critical to meeting the statutory conditions on granting waivers and awarding pilots. Some of the concerns raised by commenters will be addressed as the Agencies and the field gain experience with P3 and need not necessarily be addressed through rulemaking.

Changes: None.

Priorities

Comment: One commenter expressed opposition to the proposed priorities for special populations, such as youth who are ELs, contending that they would make the application process too complicated.

Discussion: We want to clarify the purpose of the priorities for different special populations. The statutory definition of disconnected youth for P3 is broad and includes youth who are at risk of dropping out in addition to youth who fall into other categories of eligible youth, such as those who are not employed or enrolled in school. The general purpose of these priorities is to focus attention on subpopulations of disconnected youth with great needs who might otherwise not be served or to address particular challenges that communities face in reaching these populations. The priorities are intended as options for use in future P3 competitions. The Agencies may choose which, if any, of the priorities included in this NFP are appropriate for a particular P3 competition and how the priority or priorities would apply. For example, a priority may be used as an absolute priority. This means that applicants that propose projects under that priority must address it to be eligible to be selected as a pilot. A priority could also be used as a competitive preference priority. This means that applicants who propose projects addressing that priority could receive additional points for their applications.

We acknowledge the commenter's general concern that a large number of priorities may make the application process more complicated. For that reason, although we publish seven priorities for different subpopulations in this NFP, we do not intend to use all of the subpopulation priorities in a single year's competition. Instead, for each year in which we hold a competition, we would likely choose no more than a few high-need subpopulations to emphasize.

Changes: None.

Comment: A commenter recommended that the special populations described by the proposed priorities be identified as illustrative examples of populations that could be served by a P3 project, rather than set out as priorities. The commenter was concerned that some subpopulations of disconnected youth were not included among the priorities proposed in the NPP. A second commenter noted that there is a significant number of disconnected youth who meet more than one of the proposed subpopulation priorities and expressed concern that applicants would be limited to serving only the subpopulation identified in a particular priority. The commenter encouraged us to affirm that applicants could serve youth with characteristics described by multiple priorities, such as, for example, a project that proposed to serve youth who have been involved in the justice system and who also are immigrants or refugees.

Discussion: We understand the commenters' concerns and wish to emphasize that the purpose of the subpopulation priorities is to create incentives for applicants to serve disconnected youth with great needs who might otherwise not be served or who may be difficult to reach. The use of the priorities in a given competition would not bar applicants from serving other disconnected youth who are included within the statutory definition of the term. Even if we were to use one of the subpopulation priorities as an absolute priority, the effect would be to require applicants to demonstrate how they will ensure that the subpopulation receives services. However, pilots would not be required to exclusively serve that subpopulation. Applicants also could serve youth with characteristics described by multiple priorities, such as, for example, a project that proposed to serve youth who have been involved in the justice system and who also are immigrants or refugees.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the number of subpopulation priorities be reduced to focus on youth with the greatest needs.

Discussion: As we explained in the NPP, all of the specific subpopulations for which we proposed priorities in the NPP have great needs. It may be a matter of opinion, perspective, or local circumstances to say which subpopulation has the greatest needs. Therefore there is ample reason to encourage P3 pilots to use innovative approaches and flexibility to overcome the challenges these subpopulations face and generate improved outcomes for these youth. For example, in proposing a priority for youth who are ELs, we pointed out that the average cohort graduation rate for ELs was only 61 percent for the 2012-13 school year, while the national average cohort graduation rate for all youth was 81 percent. Similarly, in proposing a priority for youth who are homeless, we noted that these young people experience higher rates of acute and chronic physical illness and have higher rates of mental illness and substance abuse than their peers who have stable housing. We also noted that the high mobility associated with homelessness also disrupts the education of these youth, placing them at greater risk of falling behind and dropping out of school.

We agree, however, that the priority for disconnected youth who are unemployed and out-of-school (Priority 4) should be amended to ensure that it is focused on those youth within this subpopulation who have the most significant needs. We note that a recent analysis of 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) data found that, while youth ages 16 to 24 who were neither employed nor enrolled in school were more likely than their peers to be poor in 2014, a majority of these youth (56 percent) did not live in poverty in that same year.3 Consequently, we believe it is appropriate to limit the priority to those unemployed and out-of-school youth who face significant barriers to education and employment. Such barriers could include, for example, having one or more disabilities or having been in the justice system. The same analysis of 2014 CPS data found that about one-third (34 percent) of youth ages 16 to 24 who were neither employed nor enrolled in school in 2014 reported that illness or disability was a major reason why they did not work. Involvement with the justice system is another example of a significant barrier to education and employment for youth who are neither employed nor enrolled in school. Many youth involved with the justice system face significant barriers to accessing the education and training they need to achieve independence and reintegrate into the community because the education and training available to them through correctional facilities, as well as upon release, often does not meet their needs.4 For older youth involved with the adult criminal justice system, having a criminal record can severely limit the ability to secure employment.5

3 Fernandes, A.L. (2015). Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or in School. Congressional Research Service Report No. R40535. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40535.pdf.

4 See, for example, Juvenile Justice Students Face Barriers to High School Graduation and Job Training (2010). Report No. 10-55. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, the Florida Legislature, Retrieved from: www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1055rpt.pdf.

5 See, for example, Pager, D.P. and Western, B. (2009). Investigating Prisoner Reentry: The Impact of Conviction Status on the Employment Prospects of Young Men: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. Document No.: 228584. Retrieved from: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228584.pdf.

Changes: We have revised Priority 4 to limit it to apply to youth who are unemployed and out-of-school and who face significant barriers to accessing education and employment.

Comment: One commenter recommended we limit the applicability of the proposed priorities for subpopulations of disconnected youth to projects that would be likely to result in significant changes in the outcomes of the particular subpopulations identified in the priorities. Another commenter expressed support for the first commenter's proposal, but also recommended that we consider either limiting the subpopulation priorities to projects that would exclusively or principally serve these subpopulations or allow applicants to focus their applications on not more than one subpopulation identified in the priorities.

Discussion: We acknowledge the first commenter's suggestion that we limit the applicability of the priorities for subpopulations of disconnected youth to projects that would be likely to result in significant changes in the outcomes of the particular subpopulations they identify. We agree with the commenter. We disagree with the second commenter's recommendation that we revise the subpopulation priorities to require that projects principally or exclusively serve the subpopulations addressed in the priority because such a requirement may result in approaches that inappropriately segregate youth with special needs from their peers and reinforce program “silos” that P3 is intended to help communities break down. However, in the event that one of these subpopulation priorities is used as a competitive preference priority, we do think it would be appropriate to consider the extent to which an applicant would serve the particular subpopulation in assessing how well an application meets the priority. An applicant that proposed to serve a small number or percentage of the subpopulation could receive fewer points than an applicant that proposed to serve a larger number or percentage of the youth identified in the priority. We also acknowledge the second commenter's suggestion that we allow applicants to focus their applications on only one of the subpopulations identified in the priorities. We can accomplish that result without additional rulemaking. Should we decide to include two or more of the subpopulation priorities in any future P3 competition, we would have the opportunity to limit applicants to selecting only one of the priorities.

Changes: We have revised the priorities for the subpopulations of high-need disconnected youth (i.e., youth who are unemployed and out of school, youth who are ELs, youth with a disability, homeless youth, youth in foster care, youth involved in the justice system, and youth who are immigrants or refugees) to specify that, in order to meet the priority, a project must both serve the particular subpopulation identified in the priority and be likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for the particular subpopulation identified in the priority. Peer reviewers will determine whether or the extent to which an applicant meets the priority based on the evidence an applicant includes in its application.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we establish a priority for urban communities with high rates of poverty and unemployment that have experienced violent protests in recent years.

Discussion: We agree with the commenter that there are numerous urban communities with high rates of poverty, unemployment, and violence that would benefit from P3. However, the 2016 Appropriations Act requires that pilots selected for FY 2015 and FY 2016 by the Agencies include “communities that have recently experienced civil unrest.” This provision makes it unnecessary to use rulemaking to ensure such communities receive priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters recommended that we establish a priority for projects that serve disconnected youth who are parents, including, particularly, projects that implement strategies that address the needs of both the parent and the child.

Discussion: We agree with the commenters that a priority for disconnected youth who are pregnant or parenting is appropriate because these adolescents and their children are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Adolescent childbearing, for example, significantly reduces the likelihood of the mother's earning a regular high school diploma, or completing at least two years of postsecondary education by age 30.6 Teenage parenting also has negative consequences for fathers; they, too, are less likely to earn a high school diploma, and they complete fewer years of schooling than their non-parenting peers.7 We also agree that two-generation strategies—that is, strategies that simultaneously address the needs of the parent and the needs of the child—can have great merit. To preserve the freedom of applicants to innovate and the flexibility inherent to P3, however, we do not believe a priority for disconnected youth who are pregnant or parenting should specify that two-generation strategies must always be used to address the priority.

6 Hoffman, S.D. (2008). Updated Estimates of the Consequences of Teen Childbearing for Mothers. In: Hoffman, S.D., and Maynard, R.A., eds. Kids Having Kids: Economic and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press: 74-92.

7 Fletcher, J.M. and Wolfe, B.L. (2012). The effects of teenage fatherhood on young adult outcomes. Economic Inquiry, 50 (1), 182-201.

Changes: We have established a priority (now Priority 11) for pilots that are likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for disconnected youth who are pregnant or parenting.

Comment: One commenter expressed support for establishing a priority for applicants whose State government had also agreed to provide flexibility to support implementation of the project.

Discussion: We recognize that flexibility from State and local requirements can be crucial to the successful implementation of a pilot. For that reason, the NFP includes the Application Requirement (c)(1)(A), which requires that an applicant provide written assurance that it has received any and all necessary state, local, or tribal flexibility, or will receive such flexibility within 60 days of being designated a pilot. However, we decline to create a separate priority for an applicant whose State has provided flexibility. We believe that the commenter's primary concern is whether the project design can be implemented effectively and will improve outcomes for disconnected youth. We do not believe there is additional benefit to a pilot that is able to implement effectively the pilots as designed due to a State government granting additional flexibility compared to one that has that ability regardless of State flexibility.

Changes: None.

Commenter: One commenter recommended that we establish a priority for projects that would be carried out by a partnership between a State, local, or tribal government and one or more non-governmental entities with experience and expertise in providing services to the population of youth who would be served.

Discussion: We agree that non-governmental entities can play valuable roles in the design, governance, and implementation of P3 pilots, but we decline to establish the recommended priority because we wish to preserve the flexibility of State, local, and tribal governments to innovate. For an initiative like P3 that seeks to provide State, local, and tribal governments greater flexibility in how they deliver services to disconnected youth, it would be inappropriately prescriptive to specify how and with which entities a pilot must engage to deliver services. We also note that this NFP includes a selection criterion that would evaluate applicants based on the strength and capacity of the proposed pilot partnership, which can include non-governmental entities.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that each of the proposed priorities for subpopulations of disconnected youth be amended to include a requirement that projects provide career assessment and/or vocational evaluation services.

Discussion: We agree with the commenter that career assessment and advising may be helpful to disconnected youth in identifying and pursuing their career goals. However, amending each of the subpopulation priorities to mandate the provision of such services would be inconsistent with P3's focus on increasing the flexibility of State, local, and tribal governments to innovate and design new solutions to improve the outcomes of disconnected youth.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters recommended that we establish a priority for projects that serve a Promise Zone.

Discussion: We agree with the commenters that a priority for projects that serve a Promise Zone has great merit. We note, however, that the Department already established such a priority in an NFP that was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035). Because it has already been established, this priority may be used in any appropriate discretionary grant competition carried out by the Department in FY 2014 and subsequent years.

Changes: None.

Final Priority 2—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Rural Communities.

Comment: One commenter expressed support for establishing a priority for projects that serve rural communities only.

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenter's support.

Changes: None.

Final Priority 3—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Tribal Communities

Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed priority for projects that serve disconnected youth who are members of one or more State- or federally-recognized Indian tribal communities and that represent a partnership that includes one or more State- or federally-recognized Indian tribes.

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenter's support.

Changes: None.

Final Priority 5—Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are English Learners.

Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the proposed priority for projects that serve disconnected youth who are ELs.

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.

Changes: None.

Final Priority 7—Improving Outcomes for Homeless Youth.

Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the proposed priority for projects that are designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth who are homeless youth.

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.

Changes: None.

Final Priority 10—Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are Immigrants or Refugees.

Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the proposed priority for projects that are designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth who are immigrants or refugees.

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters recommended that we revise the priority for immigrants or refugees to exclude individuals who have J-1 or F-1 visas.

Discussion: Individuals who are visiting the United States temporarily with a J-1 or F-1 visa are not immigrants. The J-1 and F-1 visas are nonimmigrant visas that are issued to individuals who have a permanent residence outside the U.S. and who wish to visit the U.S. on a temporary basis. J-1 visa holders participate temporarily in work-and study-based exchange visitor programs, while F-1 visa holders attend, on a full-time basis, a university or college, high school, private elementary school, seminary, conservatory, language training program, or other academic institution.

Changes: None.

Final Priority 12—Work-Based Learning Opportunities.

Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed priority for projects that provide disconnected youth with paid work-based learning opportunities and encouraged us to require all projects to offer paid work-based learning opportunities to the youth they serve during the summer months. Another commenter expressed concern about the proposed priority, contending that work experience opportunities may not be readily available in communities with high rates of unemployment, that not all youth may be ready to participate in a work-based learning opportunity because they have an intellectual disability, and that some projects may serve younger youth who are not old enough to work. The commenter conceded, however, that these exceptions are areas where P3 pilot may be most needed.

Discussion: Although we acknowledge the first commenter's support for the priority and agree that paid work-based learning is an important intervention for disconnected youth, we decline to require all projects to offer paid work-based learning opportunities during the summer months in order to preserve the flexibility inherent to P3. However, we do agree that it is appropriate to revise the priority to specify that an applicant must provide paid work-based learning to all of the disconnected youth it proposes to serve in order to meet the priority. We understand the second commenter's concerns about the difficulty of securing paid work-based learning opportunities in areas with high unemployment, but believe that applicants can overcome these difficulties with some creativity and determination in their project designs, including by establishing partnerships with employers and other non-governmental entities. We do not share the commenter's view that work-based learning may not be appropriate for some youth with disabilities; we believe that all youth with disabilities can participate in, and benefit from, work-based learning if they are provided the right accommodations and supports. With respect to the concern about younger youth who are not old enough to work, we note that youth must be at least 14 years of age to be included within P3's statutory definition of disconnected youth. Under regulations issued by the Department of Labor to implement the Fair Labor Standards Act, youth who are age 14 may work outside school hours in various non-manufacturing, non-mining, non-hazardous jobs under certain conditions.8 Moreover, we note that work-based learning opportunities can include job shadowing and internships.

8 See 29 CFR part 570—Child Labor Regulations, Orders, and Statements of Interpretation.

Changes: We have revised the priority to specify that an applicant must provide paid work-based learning to all of the disconnected youth it proposes to serve in order to meet the priority.

Final Priority 13—Site-Specific Evaluation.

Comment: Two commenters expressed support for our proposal to consolidate what had been two priorities for site-specific evaluation, one for randomized controlled trials and another for evaluations that use a quasi-experimental design, into a single priority.

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters expressed opposition to the proposed priority for applications that propose to conduct independent evaluations of their programs or specific components of their programs. Both commenters argued that the priority would be duplicative because a national evaluation of P3 is now underway. One of the commenters also expressed concern that projects would not implement high-quality evaluations because applicants lacked expertise in carrying out evaluations.

Discussion: We disagree with the commenters that a priority for site-specific evaluations would be duplicative of the national evaluation of P3 that is being carried out by the U.S. Department of Labor. We believe that promoting independent evaluations that focus exclusively on the implementation of a particular pilot is important because such studies are likely to yield valuable insights that might be missed by a national evaluation that examines the implementation and outcomes of all of the pilots. Moreover, we note that the national evaluation is focused on the first cohort of P3 pilots and it is not yet known to what extent the Agencies will support additional national evaluations to examine the experiences of subsequent cohorts. We do not share the commenter's concern about applicants' lack of expertise in evaluation because applicants may seek out others with this expertise to assist them in designing and carrying out an independent evaluation. Applicants that do not have expertise in evaluation or obtain it from other sources are unlikely to meet the priority because the assessment of the extent to which an applicant meets the priority will be based on, among other factors, the applicant's demonstrated expertise in planning and conducting an evaluation using a randomized controlled trial or quasi-experimental design.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority for site-specific evaluation be amended to require the evaluation to examine the types of career assessment services provided, the outcomes of those services, how many of the assessments' recommendations were followed, and the outcomes of those recommendations.

Discussion: We decline to mandate that the evaluation examine career assessment services because not all projects may include such services.

Changes: None.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we identified a typographical error in the second sentence of the proposed priority for site-specific evaluation. The second sentence of this priority used the term “quasi-experimental evaluation study.” The correct term, which is defined in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR 77.1) is “quasi-experimental design study.”

Changes: We have changed the reference to “quasi-experimental evaluation” in the second sentence of the priority to “quasi-experimental design study.”

Application Requirements

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that proposed Application Requirement (b), Statement of Need for a Defined Target Population, was similar to one of the proposed selection criteria. The commenter encouraged us either to clarify how the two provisions differed or to delete one of them. Another commenter contended that several proposed application requirements were duplicative because they sought information that applicants must provide in responding to the proposed selection criteria. That commenter recommended that we limit the application requirements to essential information that is not addressed by the selection criteria.

Discussion: The commenters are correct that several of the proposed application requirements sought narratives that applicants would have provided in responding to the proposed selection criteria. We proposed these application requirements in an effort to ensure that applicants provide this information so that reviewers can assess it in scoring the selection criteria. However, we acknowledge the concerns of the commenters that these proposed application requirements appear duplicative and are confusing rather than helpful.

Changes: We have revised four application requirements to remove requirements for narrative text that would be assessed by one or more of the selection criteria. The revisions we made in response to these comments are:

• In Application Requirement (b), Statement of Need for a Defined Target Population, we have removed the requirement that the applicant provide a narrative description of the target population. We have retained the requirement that the applicant complete Table 1 and specify the target population(s) for the pilot, including the range of ages of youth who will be served and the number of youth who will be served over the course of the pilot. We have also retitled the requirement “Target Population.”

• In Application Requirement (d), Project Design, we have removed the requirement that the applicant submit a narrative that describes the project, the needs of the target population, the activities or changes in practice that will be implemented, why the requested flexibility is necessary to implement the pilot, how the requested flexibility will enable the applicant to implement changes in practice, and the proposed length of the pilot. We have retained the requirement that the applicant submit a logic model and, consequently, we have renamed Application Requirement (d) “Logic Model.”

• We have deleted Application Requirement (e), Work Plan and Project Management.

• In Application Requirement (g), Budget and Budget Narrative (formerly Application Requirement (h)), we have revised the requirement to refer only to the budget and to require only the completion of Table 5. We have removed the requirement to provide a narrative regarding the amount and use of start-up funds, the proposed uses of funds named in Table 5, and the amount and sources of any non-Federal funds that may be used in the pilot. In addition, Table 5 has been revised to remove the rows that asked applicants to break out, for pilots proposed for multiple years, the amount and source of Federal funds that would be used in each calendar year of the project.

Comment: One commenter urged us to require applicants to provide evidence that the parties involved in the proposed project's implementation show evidence of prior collaboration through in-kind commitments, braided funding, or shared services.

Discussion: We decline to impose the recommended requirement because it would be duplicative. The extent to which partners in the proposed project have successfully collaborated to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in the past is among the factors assessed by Selection Criterion (e)(1). Additionally, the recommended requirement is inappropriately prescriptive. To be effective, collaboration need not always involve in-kind commitments, braided funding, or shared services.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter commended us for giving applicants some flexibility in selecting the indicators and outcome measures that would be used to evaluate their projects, but suggested that we establish a small, common set of outcome measures that all pilots would use. The commenter recommended that we make placement and retention in school and/or placement and retention in employment required outcome measures for all pilots.

Discussion: As the commenter acknowledged, both the interventions implemented and the populations served can be diverse across P3 projects, making it difficult to identify appropriate indicators and outcome measures that should apply to all projects. We do see merit, however, in having a menu of indicators and outcome measures from which applicants may choose so that similar projects use common indicators and outcome measures, facilitating comparisons in performance across the P3 pilots.

Changes: We have added a menu of indicators and outcome measures to redesignated Application Requirement (f). Applicants may choose from this menu, or propose alternative indicators and outcome measures if they describe why those are more appropriate for their proposed projects. Applicants may propose additional measures and indicators that are not included among the options we identify, so long as they select at least one indicator and one outcome measure in the domain of education and at least one indicator and outcome measure in the domain of employment. Applicants may also propose additional measures and indicators outside of the education and employment domains such as well-being, including health, housing, recidivism, or other outcomes and are encouraged to do so where such outcomes are central to the proposed pilot.

Comments: None.

Discussion: One of the outcome measures we proposed in Application Requirement (f) was “community college completion.” Upon further review, we determined that it would be more appropriate and inclusive to refer more generally to college completion so that pilots would have the option of measuring and setting targets for the completion of degree and certificate programs offered by four-year colleges and universities, as well as those offered by community colleges.

Changes: We substituted the phrase “college completion” for “community college completion” in Application Requirement (f).

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we noted that the text of Application Requirement (b) did not conform to the headings in Table 1 in two instances. First, the text of Application Requirement (b) instructed applicants to include the “range of ages of youth” while the heading for column 2 in Table 1 was “age range.” Second, the text of Application Requirement (b) instructed applicants to provide the “number of youth who will be served annually,” while the header for column 3 in Table 1 was “Estimated Number of Youth Served Over the Course of the Pilot.”

Changes: We revised the text of Application Requirement (b) so that it conforms to the headings of Table 1. We have substituted “age range” for “range of ages of youth” and “estimated number of youth served over the course of the pilot” for “number of youth who will be served annually.”

Comments: None.

Discussion: In the NPP, the note accompanying Table 2 in Application Requirement (c)(1) (Federal requests for flexibility, including waivers) instructed applicants to indicate in the column for the name of grantee whether the grantee was a State, local, or tribal government. Upon further review, we determined that this note also should include a reference to non-governmental entities, if applicable. This change is appropriate because, while only State, local, or tribal governments may submit a P3 application, they may request waivers on behalf of non-governmental entities that are their partners in order to implement their pilots.

Changes: We have added “or non-governmental entity” to the note accompanying Table 2 in Application Requirement (c)(1).

Comments: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we noted that Table 2 in Application Requirement (c)(1) (Federal requests for flexibility, including waivers) was titled “Requested Waivers.” However, the requirement refers more generally to requests for flexibility, including waivers.

Changes: As a result, we have retitled Table 2 “Requested Flexibility.”

Comments: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we concluded that, for clarity, Table 5 in Application Requirement (g) should include a column that requests the name of the grantee that is the recipient of the specified funds and that the reference to “applicant or its partners” should be changed to “the grantee.” These changes are important because the recipient of funds may not always be the applicant.

Changes: We have added to Table 5 in Application Requirement (g) a column that requests the name of the grantee that is the recipient of the specified funds and changed to reference to “applicants and its partners” to the “grantee.”

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we noted that the text of Application Requirement (g)(1)(A) was incomplete because it did not specify the content of the fifth and sixth columns in the accompanying Table 5.

Changes: We revised Application Requirement (g)(1)(A) to specify the information to be provided in these columns: the Federal fiscal year of the award (column 5) and whether the grant has already been awarded (column 6).

Comment: One commenter recommended that we impose a program requirement that would mandate that intake personnel or case workers involved in a P3 project seek to obtain a youth's school records, if feasible, to avoid spending unnecessary time and resources on assessing the youth's academic skills.

Discussion: We agree that projects should seek school records where feasible so that time and money are not wasted on unnecessary reassessments of youth's skills. However, we decline to mandate this practice because it would be inappropriately prescriptive for an initiative like P3 that seeks to increase State, local, and tribal flexibility to innovate. We also wish to avoid establishing detailed procedural requirements or other mandates for how projects must be carried out so that we can focus on assessing P3 projects on the basis of the outcomes they achieve for youth, rather than how they deliver services to youth.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we require P3 projects to assess the career interests, aptitudes and goals of participants, as well as compel projects to offer work-based career assessment strategies as one option for such assessments.

Discussion: We agree that assessing the career interests, aptitudes, and goals of youth is worthwhile, but we decline to impose the mandate recommended by the commenter so that we can preserve the freedom of State, local, and tribal governments to innovate. We do not believe it is appropriate to compel applicants to provide particular types of services and interventions.

Changes: None.

Definitions:

Comment: Two commenters expressed support for our proposal to base the definition of English learner on the definition of “English language learner” found in section 203 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (29 U.S.C. 3272(7)). However, one of these commenters noted that the WIOA section 203 definition requires English language learners to be “eligible individuals,” which is defined by WIOA section 203(4) as individuals who are at least 16 years of age. This commenter urged us to affirm that the P3 definition of “English learner” includes youth as young as age 14.

Discussion: We acknowledge the support for the definition. The second commenter is correct that an individual must be 16 years of age to meet the WIOA section 203 definition of “English language learner.” For this reason, we did not cross-reference the WIOA section 203 definition in our proposed definition of the term “English learner” for P3, choosing instead to adapt the definition so that it would be suitable for P3 and include youth as young as age 14.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters expressed support for our proposal to define the term “homeless youth” using the definition found in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)).

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.

Changes: None.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that the proposed definition of “braided funding” required revision. The definition we had originally proposed had indicated that braiding funds does not require a waiver. While this is true, it is possible that a waiver might facilitate a pilot's ability to braid funds, such as by aligning the eligibility requirements of two programs.

Changes: We have amended the definition of “braided funding” to clarify that waivers may be used to support more effective or efficient braiding of funds.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that the proposed definition of “waiver” required revision. The definition we had originally proposed had indicated that a waiver provides relief from specific statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements. In some instances, however, a waiver might waive a specific requirement in part, rather than eliminate it altogether. For example, a waiver could enable a pilot to increase the eligibility requirements of a program from 18 to 21 years old.

Changes: We have amended the definition of waiver to indicate that a waiver may waive specific statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements in whole or in part.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we identified a typographical error in the first sentence of the proposed definition of “evidence-based intervention.” The first sentence of this definition used the term “quasi-experimental studies.” The correct term, which is defined in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR 77.1) is “quasi-experimental design studies.”

Changes: We have changed the reference to “quasi-experimental studies” in the first sentence of the definition to “quasi-experimental design studies.”

Comment: None.

Discussion: The NPP included a proposed definition for the term “evidence-based intervention,” which was used in proposed Selection Criterion (c)(2). Since the publication of the NPP, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Pub. Law 114-95) was enacted into law. This Act, which authorizes most of the Department's elementary and secondary education programs, uses extensively the terms “evidence-based” and “evidence-based intervention.” However, ESSA defines the term “evidence-based” differently than we had proposed to define the term “evidence-based intervention” in the NPP.

Change: To prevent confusion with the ESSA definition of the term “evidence-based,” we have changed the term “evidence-based intervention” in the Definitions section and in Selection Criterion (c)(2) to “intervention based on evidence.”

Selection Criteria:

Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that disaggregated outcome data are not readily available for some ELs and youth who are immigrants or refugees, including, particularly, outcome data by nativity and ethnicity for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs). The commenters were concerned that applications that proposed to serve these populations would not score well under Selection Criterion (a), Need for Project, as a result.

Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' concerns about the limited availability of data on AAPIs that is disaggregated by nativity and ethnicity, but we note that, in part due to the efforts of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, such data are becoming increasingly available. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics now disaggregates Current Population Survey estimates on labor force participation, employment, and unemployment for seven Asian groups. However, we recognize that there may still be instances where disaggregated data are difficult to obtain.

Changes: We have added a sentence to the note accompanying Selection Criterion (a) clarifying that applicants may also refer to disaggregated data available through research, studies, or other sources that describe similarly situated populations as the one the applicant is targeting with its pilot.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that it was necessary to clarify that Selection Criterion (a) does not require applicants to submit the needs assessment to which the criterion refers. Applicants need only present data from a needs assessment that was conducted or updated in the past three years; the needs assessment itself does not need to be provided.

Changes: We have added a note to accompany Selection Criterion (a) that indicates that applicants are not required to submit the needs assessment but that they should identify when the needs assessment was conducted or updated.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that it was necessary to replace the term “a waiver” in Selection Criterion (b)(1) with the broader term “flexibility” in order to make the text of the criterion consistent with its title.

Changes: We have replaced the word “waiver” in Selection Criterion (b)(1) with the word “flexibility.”

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that, for clarity, it was necessary to include in Selection Criterion (b)(1) and (2) cross-references to Table 2 because this is where an applicant identifies the requirements for which it is seeking flexibility.

Changes: We have revised Selection Criterion (b) (1) and (2) to include cross-references to Table 2.

Comment: None.

Discussion: As proposed in the NPP, Application Requirement (b) would have required that the needs assessment used to identify the needs of the target population to have been conducted or updated within the past three years. As discussed above, in response to public comment, we have removed some of the requirements from proposed Application Requirement (b) because much of the information it sought also must be provided to respond to Selection Criterion (a), Need for Project.

Changes: Because it is important that applicants provide recent data on the needs of the population(s) they propose to serve, we have revised Selection Criterion (a) to specify that the data provided in response to this selection criterion must be from a needs assessment conducted or updated within the past three years.

Comments: None.

Discussion: In the NPP, Selection Criterion (c) referred to the “Statement of Need section” and “Need for Flexibility section.” Upon further review, we determined that it was not clear that these were cross-references to the applicant's responses to Selection Criteria (a) and (b), respectively.

Changes: We have revised Selection Criterion (c) to clarify that it refers to the applicant's responses to Selection Criteria (a) and (b).

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that it was necessary to revise Selection Criterion (c)(2) to clarify its meaning. As we had originally proposed it, this subcriterion was confusing with regard to the meaning of “evidence” and “base.” Further, we determined that the subcriterion's reference to “relevant evidence” was unclear.

Changes: We have revised the subcriterion to eliminate the use of the word “base” as both a noun and a verb so that it now assesses “[t]he strength of the evidence supporting the pilot design, and whether the applicant proposes the effective use of interventions based on evidence and evidence-informed interventions (as defined in this notice).” We also revised the subcriterion to clarify that evidence is relevant if it informed the applicant's design.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that, for clarity, it was necessary to revise Selection Criterion (f) (2) and (3) to indicate that the information evaluated by these two subcriteria appears in Table 4.

Changes: We have revised Selection Criterion (f) (2) and (3) to include cross-references to Table 4.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review, we found that Selection Criterion (g), Budget and Budget Narrative, may be confusing to applicants because the budget to which it refers is not clearly specified. The criterion could refer to the start-up grant funds requested by the applicant, the Federal funds that would be blended or braided in the proposed pilot, the non-Federal funds contributed by the applicant, or all of these sources of funds.

Changes: We have revised Selection Criterion (g) to indicate that its scope includes all of the funds that will be used by a pilot, including the start-up grant funds, blended and braided funds, and any non-Federal resources contributed by the applicant.

Final Priorities

Priority 1—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that is designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth.

Priority 2—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Rural Communities.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that is designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in one or more rural communities (as defined in this notice) only.

Priority 3—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Tribal Communities.

To meet this priority, an applicant must (1) propose a pilot that is designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth who are members of one or more State- or federally-recognized Indian tribal communities; and (2) represent a partnership that includes one or more State- or federally-recognized Indian tribes.

Priority 4—Improving Outcomes for Youth Who Are Unemployed and Out of School.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that—

(1) will serve disconnected youth who are neither employed nor enrolled in education and who face significant barriers to accessing education and employment; and

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Priority 5—Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are English Learners.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that—

(1) will serve disconnected youth who are English learners (as defined in this notice); and

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Priority 6—Improving Outcomes for Youth with a Disability.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that—

(1) will serve disconnected youth who are individuals with a disability (as defined in this notice); and

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Priority 7—Improving Outcomes for Homeless Youth.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that—

(1) will serve disconnected youth who are homeless youth (as defined in this notice); and

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Priority 8—Improving Outcomes for Youth in Foster Care.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that—-

(1) will serve disconnected youth who are or have ever been in foster care; and

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Priority 9—Improving Outcomes for Youth Involved in the Justice System.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that—

(1) will serve disconnected youth who are involved in the justice system; and

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Priority 10—Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are Immigrants or Refugees.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that—

(1) will serve disconnected youth who are immigrants or refugees; and

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Priority 11—Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are Pregnant or Parenting.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that—-

(1) will serve disconnected youth who are pregnant or parenting; and

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

Priority 12—Work-Based Learning Opportunities.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that will provide all of the disconnected youth it proposes to serve with paid work-based learning opportunities, such as opportunities during the summer, which are integrated with academic and technical instruction.

Priority 13—Site-Specific Evaluation.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to conduct an independent evaluation of the impacts on disconnected youth of its overall program or specific components of its program that is a randomized controlled trial or a quasi-experimental design study. The extent to which an applicant meets this priority will be based on the clarity and feasibility of the applicant's proposed evaluation design, the appropriateness of the design to best capture key pilot outcomes, the prospective contribution of the evaluation to the knowledge base about serving disconnected youth (including the rigor of the design and the validity and generalizability of the findings), and the applicant's demonstrated expertise in planning and conducting a randomized controlled trial or quasi-experimental design study.

In order to meet this priority, an applicant also must include the following two documents as separate attachments to its application:

1. A Summary Evaluation Plan that describes how the pilot or a component of the pilot (such as a discrete service-delivery strategy) will be rigorously evaluated. The evaluation plan may not exceed eight pages. The plan must include the following:

• A brief description of the research question(s) proposed for study and an explanation of its/their relevance, including how the proposed evaluation will build on the research evidence base for the project as described in the application and how the evaluation findings will be used to improve program implementation;

• A description of the randomized controlled trial or quasi-experimental design study methodology, including the key outcome measures, the process for forming a comparison or control group, a justification for the target sample size and strategy for achieving it, and the approach to data collection (and sources) that minimizes both cost and potential attrition;

• A proposed evaluation timeline, including dates for submission of required interim and final reports;

• A description of how, to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal privacy requirements, evaluation data will be made available to other, third‐party researchers after the project ends; and

• A plan for selecting and procuring the services of a qualified independent evaluator (as defined in this notice) prior to enrolling participants (or a description of how one was selected if agreements have already been reached). The applicant must describe how it will ensure that the qualified independent evaluator has the capacity and expertise to conduct the evaluation, including estimating the effort for the qualified independent evaluator. This estimate must include the time, expertise, and analysis needed to successfully complete the proposed evaluation.

2. A supplementary Evaluation Budget Narrative, which is separate from the overall application budget narrative and provides a description of the costs associated with funding the proposed program evaluation component, and an explanation of its funding source—i.e., blended funding, start-up funding, State, local, or tribal government funding, or other funding (such as philanthropic). The budget must include a breakout of costs by evaluation activity (such as data collection and participant follow-up), and the applicant must describe a strategy for refining the budget after the services of an evaluator have been procured. The applicant must include travel costs for the qualified independent evaluator to attend at least one in-person conference in Washington, DC during the period of evaluation. All costs included in this supplementary budget narrative must be reasonable and appropriate to the project timeline and deliverables.

The Agencies will review the Summary Evaluation Plans and Evaluation Budget Narratives and provide feedback to applicants that are determined to have met the priority and that are selected as pilots. After award, these pilots must submit to the lead Federal agency a detailed evaluation plan of no more than 30 pages that relies heavily on the expertise of a qualified independent evaluator. The detailed evaluation plan must address the Agencies' feedback and expand on the Summary Evaluation Plan.

[Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1830-0575]

Types of Priorities

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Requirements Application Requirements

The Assistant Secretary announces the following application requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

(a) Executive Summary. The applicant must provide an executive summary that briefly describes the proposed pilot, the flexibilities being sought, and the interventions or systems changes that would be implemented by the applicant and its partners to improve outcomes for disconnected youth.

(b) Target Population. The applicant must complete Table 1, specifying the target population(s) for the pilot, including the age range of youth who will be served and the estimated number of youth who will be served over the course of the pilot.

Table 1—Target Population Target
  • population
  • Age
  • range
  • Estimated number of youth served over the course of the pilot

    (c) Flexibility, including waivers:

    1. Federal requests for flexibility, including waivers. For each program to be included in a pilot, the applicant must complete Table 2, Requested Flexibility. The applicant must identify two or more discretionary Federal programs that will be included in the pilot, at least one of which must be administered (in whole or in part) by a State, local, or tribal government.9 In table 2, the applicant must identify one or more program requirements that would inhibit implementation of the pilot and request that the requirement(s) be waived in whole or in part. Examples of potential waiver requests and other requests for flexibility include, but are not limited to: blending of funds and changes to align eligibility requirements, allowable uses of funds, and performance reporting.

    9 Local governments that are requesting waivers of requirements in State-administered programs are strongly encouraged to consult with the State agencies that administer the programs in preparing their applications.

    Table 2—Requested Flexibility Program name Federal
  • agency
  • Program
  • requirements to be waived in whole or in part
  • Statutory or regulatory
  • citation
  • Name of
  • program
  • grantee
  • Blending funds?
  • (Yes/No)
  • Note:

    Please note in “Name of Program Grantee” if the grantee is a State, local, or tribal government, or non-governmental entity.

    2. Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers. The applicant must provide written assurance that:

    A. The State, local, or tribal government(s) with authority to grant any needed non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, has approved or will approve such flexibility within 60 days of an applicant's designation as a pilot finalist; 10 or

    10 This includes, for example, for local governments, instances in which a waiver must be agreed upon by a State. It also includes instances in which waivers may only be requested by the State on the local government's behalf, such as waivers of the performance accountability requirements for local areas established in Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

    B. Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, is not needed in order to successfully implement the pilot.

    (d) Logic Model. The applicant must provide a graphic depiction (not longer than one page) of the pilot's logic model that illustrates the underlying theory of how the pilot's strategy will produce intended outcomes.

    (e) Partnership Capacity and Management. The applicant must—

    1. Identify the proposed partners, including any and all State, local, and tribal entities and non-governmental organizations that would be involved in implementation of the pilot, and describe their roles in the pilot's implementation using Table 3. Partnerships that cross programs and funding sources but are under the jurisdiction of a single agency or entity must identify the different sub-organizational units involved.

    2. Provide a memorandum of understanding or letter of commitment signed by the executive leader or other accountable senior representative of each partner that describes each proposed partner's commitment, including its contribution of financial or in-kind resources (if any).

    Table 3—Pilot Partners Partner Type of
  • organization (state agency, local agency, community-based
  • organization, business)
  • Description of partner's role in the pilot
    Note:

    Any grantees mentioned in Table 2 that are not the lead applicant must be included in Table 3.

    (f) Data and Performance Management Capacity. The applicant must propose outcome measures and interim indicators to gauge pilot performance using Table 4. At least one outcome measure must be in the domain of education, and at least one outcome measure must be in the domain of employment. Applicants may specify additional employment and education outcome measures, as well as outcome measures in other domains of well-being, such as criminal justice, physical and mental health, and housing. Regardless of the outcome domain, applicants must identify at least one interim indicator for each proposed outcome measure. Applicants may apply one interim indicator to multiple outcome measures, if appropriate.

    Examples of outcome measures and interim indicators follow. Applicants may choose from this menu or may propose alternative indicators and outcome measures if they describe why their alternatives are more appropriate for their proposed projects.

    Education Domain Outcome measure Interim indicator High school diploma or equivalency attainment • High school enrollment.
  • • Reduction in chronic absenteeism.
  • • Grade promotion. • Performance on standardized assessments. • Grade Point Average. • Credit accumulation. College completion • Enrollment. • Course attendance. • Credit accumulation. • Retention.
    Employment Domain Outcome measure Interim indicator Sustained Employment • Unsubsidized employment at time periods after exit from the program. • Median earnings at time periods after exit from the program.

    The specific outcome measures and interim indicators the applicant uses should be grounded in its logic model, and informed by applicable program results or research, as appropriate. Applicants must also indicate the source of the data, the proposed frequency of collection, and the methodology used to collect the data.

    Table 4—Outcome Measures and Interim Indicators Domain Outcome measure Interim indicator(s) Education: Data Source: Data Source: Frequency of Collection: Frequency of Collection: Methodology: Methodology: Employment: Data Source: Data Source: Frequency of Collection: Frequency of Collection: Methodology: Methodology: Other: Data Source: Data Source: Frequency of Collection: Frequency of Collection: Methodology: Methodology:

    (g) Budget and Budget Narrative.

    1. The applicant must complete Table 5 to provide the following budget information:

    A. For each Federal program, the grantee, the amount of funds to be blended or braided (as defined in this notice), the percentage of total program funding received by the grantee that the amount to be blended or braided represents, the Federal fiscal year of the award, and whether the grant has already been awarded; and

    B. The total amount of funds from all Federal programs that would be blended or braided under the pilot.

    Table 5—Federal Funds Program name Grantee Amount of funds to be blended Blended funds as a
  • percentage of grantee's
  • total award
  • Federal fiscal year of award Grant already awarded?
  • (Y/N)
  • TOTAL BLENDED Program name Grantee Amount of funds to be braided Braided funds as a percentage of grantee's total award Federal fiscal year of award Grant already awarded?
  • (Y/N)
  • TOTAL BRAIDED
    Note:

    Applicants may propose to expand the number of Federal programs supporting pilot activities using future funding beyond FY 2016, which may be included in pilots if Congress extends the P3 authority.

    [Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1830-0575] Program Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following program requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

    (a) National evaluation. In addition to any site-specific evaluations that pilots may undertake, the Agencies may initiate a national P3 evaluation of the pilots selected in Round 2, as well as those selected in subsequent rounds.11 Each P3 pilot must participate fully in any federally sponsored P3 evaluation activity, including the national evaluation of P3, which will consist of the analysis of participant characteristics and outcomes, an implementation analysis at all sites, and rigorous impact evaluations of promising interventions in selected sites. The applicant must acknowledge in writing its understanding of these requirements by submitting the form provided in Appendix A, “Evaluation Commitment Form,” as an attachment to its application.

    11 The initiation of any federally sponsored national P3 evaluation is dependent upon the availability of sufficient funds and resources.

    [Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1830-0575]

    (b) Community of practice. All P3 pilots must participate in a community of practice (as defined in this notice) that includes an annual in-person meeting of pilot sites (paid with grant funding that must be reflected in the pilot budget submitted) and virtual peer-to-peer learning activities. This commitment involves each pilot site working with the lead Federal agency on a plan for supporting its technical assistance needs, which can include learning activities supported by foundations or other non-Federal organizations as well as activities financed with Federal funds for the pilot.

    (c) Consent. P3 pilots must secure necessary consent from parents, guardians, students, or youth program participants to access data for their pilots and any evaluations, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws. Applicants must explain how they propose to ensure compliance with Federal, State, local, and tribal privacy laws and regulations as pilot partners share data to support effective coordination of services and link data to track outcome measures and interim indicators at the individual level to perform, where applicable, a low-cost, high-quality evaluation.12

    12 To the extent feasible and consistent with applicable privacy requirements, grantees must also ensure the data from their evaluations are made available to third‐party researchers.

    (d) Performance agreement. Each P3 pilot, along with other non-Federal government entities involved in the partnership, must enter into a performance agreement that will include, at a minimum, the following (as required by section 526(c)(2) of Division H of the 2014 Appropriations Act):

    1. The length of the agreement;

    2. The Federal programs and federally-funded services that are involved in the pilot;

    3. The Federal discretionary funds that are being used in the pilot;

    4. The non‐Federal funds that are involved in the pilot, by source (which may include private funds as well as governmental funds) and by amount;

    5. The State, local, or tribal programs that are involved in the pilot;

    6. The populations to be served by the pilot;

    7. The cost‐effective Federal oversight procedures that will be used for the purpose of maintaining the necessary level of accountability for the use of the Federal discretionary funds;

    8. The cost‐effective State, local, or tribal oversight procedures that will be used for the purpose of maintaining the necessary level of accountability for the use of the Federal discretionary funds;

    9. The outcome (or outcomes) that the pilot is designed to achieve;

    10. The appropriate, reliable, and objective outcome‐measurement methodology that will be used to determine whether the pilot is achieving, and has achieved, specified outcomes;

    11. The statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements related to Federal mandatory programs that are barriers to achieving improved outcomes of the pilot; and

    12. Criteria for determining when a pilot is not achieving the specified outcomes that it is designed to achieve and subsequent steps, including:

    i. The consequences that will result; and

    ii. The corrective actions that will be taken in order to increase the likelihood that the pilot will achieve such specified outcomes.

    Definitions

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Blended funding is a funding and resource allocation strategy that uses multiple existing funding streams to support a single initiative or strategy. Blended funding merges two or more funding streams, or portions of multiple funding streams, to produce greater efficiency and/or effectiveness. Funds from each individual stream lose their award-specific identity, and the blended funds together become subject to a single set of reporting and other requirements, consistent with the underlying purposes of the programs for which the funds were appropriated.

    Braided funding is a funding and resource allocation strategy in which entities use existing funding streams to support unified initiatives in as flexible and integrated a manner as possible while still tracking and maintaining separate accountability for each funding stream. One or more entities may coordinate several funding sources, but each individual funding stream maintains its award-specific identity. Whereas blending funds typically requires one or more waivers of associated program requirements, braiding does not. However, waivers may be used to support more effective or efficient braiding of funds.

    Community of practice means a group of pilots that agrees to interact regularly to solve persistent problems or improve practice in an area that is important to them and the success of their projects.

    English learner means an individual who has limited ability in reading, writing, speaking, or comprehending the English language, and—

    (A) Whose native language is a language other than English; or

    (B) Who lives in a family or community environment where a language other than English is the dominant language.

    Evidence-informed interventions bring together the best available research, professional expertise, and input from youth and families to identify and deliver services that have promise to achieve positive outcomes for youth, families, and communities.

    Homeless youth has the same meaning as “homeless children and youths” in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)).

    Individual with a disability means an individual with any disability as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102).

    An interim indicator is a marker of achievement that demonstrates progress toward an outcome and is measured at least annually.

    Interventions based on evidence are approaches to prevention or treatment that are validated by documented scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials, or quasi-experimental design studies or correlational studies, and that show positive effects (for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental design studies) or favorable associations (for correlational studies) on the primary targeted outcomes for populations or settings similar to those of the proposed pilot. The best evidence to support an applicant's proposed reform(s) and target population will be based on one or more randomized controlled trials. The next best evidence will be studies using a quasi-experimental design. Correlational analysis may also be used as evidence to support an applicant's proposed reforms.

    Outcomes are the intended results of a program, or intervention. They are what applicants expect their projects to achieve. An outcome can be measured at the participant level (for example, changes in employment retention or earnings of disconnected youth) or at the system level (for example, improved efficiency in program operations or administration).

    A qualified independent evaluator is an individual who coordinates with the grantee and the lead Federal agency for the pilot, but works independently on the evaluation and has the capacity to carry out the evaluation, including, but not limited to: Prior experience conducting evaluations of similar design (for example, for randomized controlled trials, the evaluator will have successfully conducted a randomized controlled trial in the past); positive past performance on evaluations of a similar design, as evidenced by past performance reviews submitted from past clients directly to the awardee; lead staff with prior experience carrying out a similar evaluation; lead staff with minimum credential (such as a Ph.D. plus three years of experience conducting evaluations of a similar nature, or a Master's degree plus seven years of experience conducting evaluations of a similar nature); and adequate staff time to work on the evaluation.

    A rural community is a community that is served only by one or more local educational agencies (LEAs) that are currently eligible under the Department of Education's Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, or includes only schools designated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) with a locale code of 42 or 43.

    A waiver provides flexibility in the form of relief, in whole or in part, from specific statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements that have hindered the ability of a State, locality, or tribe to organize its programs and systems or provide services in ways that best meet the needs of its target populations. Under P3, waivers provide flexibility in exchange for a pilot's commitment to improve programmatic outcomes for disconnected youth consistent with underlying statutory authorities and purposes.

    Selection Criteria

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following selection criteria for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In the notice inviting applications, the application package, or both we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.

    (a) Need for Project. In determining the need for the proposed project, we will consider the magnitude of the need of the target population, as evidenced by the applicant's analysis of data, including data from a comprehensive needs assessment conducted or updated in the past three years, using representative data on youth in the jurisdiction(s) proposing the pilot, that demonstrates how the target population lags behind other groups in achieving positive outcomes and the specific risk factors for this population.

    Note:

    Applicants are encouraged to disaggregate these data according to relevant demographic factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, involvement in systems such as foster care or juvenile justice, status as pregnant or parenting, and other key factors selected by the applicant. If disaggregated data specific to the local population are not available, applicants may refer to disaggregated data available through research, studies, or other sources that describe similarly situated populations as the one the applicant is targeting with its pilot.

    Note:

    Applicants do not need to include a copy of the needs assessment but should identify when it was conducted or updated.

    (b) Need for Requested Flexibility, Including Blending of Funds and Other Waivers. In determining the need for the requested flexibility, including blending of funds and other waivers, we will consider:

    1. The strength and clarity of the applicant's justification that each of the specified Federal requirements identified in Table 2 for which the applicant is seeking flexibility hinders implementation of the proposed pilot; and

    2. The strength and quality of the applicant's justification of how each request for flexibility identified in Table 2 (i.e., blending funds and waivers) will increase efficiency or access to services and produce significantly better outcomes for the target population(s).

    (c) Project Design. In determining the strength of the project design, we will consider:

    1. The strength and logic of the proposed project design in addressing the gaps and the disparities identified in the response to Selection Criterion (a) (Need for Project) and the barriers identified in the response to Selection Criterion (b) (Need for Requested Flexibility, Including Blending of Funds and Other Waivers). This includes the clarity of the applicant's plan and how the plan differs from current practices. Scoring will account for the strength of both the applicant's narrative and the logic model;

    Note:

    The applicant's narrative should describe how the proposed project will use and coordinate resources, including building on participation in any complementary Federal initiatives or efforts.

    2. The strength of the evidence supporting the pilot design and whether the applicant proposes the effective use of intervention based on evidence and evidence-informed interventions (as defined in this notice) as documented by citations to the relevant evidence that informed the applicant's design;

    Note:

    Applicants should cite the studies on interventions and system reforms that informed their pilot design and explain the relevance of the cited evidence to the proposed project in terms of subject matter and evaluation evidence. Applicants proposing reforms on which there are not yet evaluations (such as innovations that have not been formally tested or tested only on a small scale) should document how evidence or practice knowledge informed the proposed pilot design.

    3. The strength of the applicant's evidence that the project design, including any protections and safeguards that will be established, ensures that the consequences or impacts of the changes from current practices in serving youth through the proposed funding streams:

    A. Will not result in denying or restricting the eligibility of individuals for services that (in whole or in part) are otherwise funded by these programs; and

    B. Based on the best available information, will not otherwise adversely affect vulnerable populations that are the recipients of those services.

    (d) Work Plan and Project Management. In determining the strength of the work plan and project management, we will consider the strength and completeness of the work plan and project management approach and their likelihood of achieving the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, based on—

    1. Clearly defined and appropriate responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

    2. The qualifications of project personnel to ensure proper management of all project activities;

    3. How any existing or anticipated barriers to implementation will be overcome.

    Note:

    If the program manager or other key personnel are already on staff, the applicant should provide this person's resume or curriculum vitae.

    Note:

    Evaluation activities may be included in the timelines provided as part of the work plan.

    (e) Partnership Capacity. In determining the strength and capacity of the proposed pilot partnership, we will consider the following factors—

    1. How well the applicant demonstrates that it has an effective governance structure in which partners that are necessary to implement the pilot successfully are represented and have the necessary authority, resources, expertise, and incentives to achieve the pilot's goals and resolve unforeseen issues, including by demonstrating the extent to which, and how, participating partners have successfully collaborated to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in the past;

    2. How well the applicant demonstrates that its proposal was designed with substantive input from all relevant stakeholders, including disconnected youth and other community partners.

    Note:

    Where the project design includes job training strategies, the extent of employer input and engagement in the identification of skills and competencies needed by employers, the development of the curriculum, and the offering of work-based learning opportunities, including pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship, will be considered.

    (f) Data and Performance Management Capacity. In determining the strength of the applicant's data and performance management capacity, we will consider the following factors—

    1. The applicant's capacity to collect, analyze, and use data for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability, and the strength of the applicant's plan to bridge any gaps in its ability to do so. This capacity includes the extent to which the applicant and partner organizations have tracked and shared data about program participants, services, and outcomes, including the execution of data-sharing agreements that comport with Federal, State, and other privacy laws and requirements, and will continue to do so;

    2. How well the proposed outcome measures, interim indicators, and measurement methodologies specified in Table 4 of the application appropriately and sufficiently gauge results achieved for the target population under the pilot; and

    3. How well the data sources specified in Table 4 of the application can be appropriately accessed and used to reliably measure the proposed outcome measures and interim indicators.

    (g) Budget and Budget Narrative. In determining the adequacy of the resources that will be committed to support the project, we will consider the appropriateness of expenses within the budget with regards to cost and to implementing the pilot successfully. We will consider the entirety of funds the applicant will use to support its pilot including start-up grant funds, blended and braided funds included in Table 5, and non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions.

    This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note:

    This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

    In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the need for regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as regulatory alternatives we considered. The potential costs of the final priorities requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are the costs associated with preparing an application. We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 80 hours of staff time to address the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The total number of hours for all applicants will vary based on the number of applications. Based on the number of applications the Department received in response to the November 2014 notice inviting applications, we expect to receive approximately 55 applications. The total number of hours for all expected applicants is an estimated 4,400 hours. We estimate the total cost per hour of the staff who carry out this work to be $44.66 per hour, the mean hourly compensation cost for State and local government workers in September 2015. The total estimated cost for all applicants would be $196,504.

    The potential benefits of the final priorities requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are that they would promote the efficient and effective use of the P3 authority. Implementation of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will help the Agencies identify pilots that will: (1) Serve disconnected youth with significant needs; (2) carry out effective reforms and interventions; and (3) be managed by strong partnerships with the capacity to collect, analyze, and use data for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) does not require you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to the collections of information in this NFP at the end of the affected priorities and requirements.

    Priority 13 (Site-Specific Evaluation), Application Requirements (a) through (g), and Program Requirement (a) (National evaluation) contain information collection requirements. Under PRA, the Department has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB, as well as the related Information Collection Request (ICR) (the application package), for its review and approval. In accordance with the PRA, the OMB Control number associated with these collections of information and the related ICR is OMB Control number 1830-0575. OMB approval of these collections of information and the related ICR is expected at the time of publication of the NFP.

    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

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

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

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

    Johan E. Uvin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Duties of Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education. Appendix A: Evaluation Commitment Form

    An authorized executive of the lead applicant and all other partners, including State, local, tribal, and non-governmental organizations that would be involved in the pilot's implementation, must sign this form and submit it as an attachment to the grant application. The form is not considered in the recommended application page limit.

    Commitment To Participate in Required Evaluation Activities

    As the lead applicant or a partner proposing to implement a Performance Partnership Pilot through a Federal grant, I/we agree to carry out the following activities, which are considered evaluation requirements applicable to all pilots:

    Facilitate Data Collection: I/we understand that the award of this grant requires me/us to facilitate the collection and/or transmission of data for evaluation and performance monitoring purposes to the lead Federal agency and/or its national evaluator in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local, and tribal laws, including privacy laws.

    The type of data that will be collected includes, but is not limited to, the following:

    • Demographic information, including participants' gender, race, age, school status, and employment status;

    • Information on the services that participants receive; and

    • Outcome measures and interim outcome indicators, linked at the individual level, which will be used to measure the effects of the pilots.

    The lead Federal agency will provide more details to grantees on the data items required for performance and evaluation after grants have been awarded.

    Participate in Evaluation: I/we understand that participation and full cooperation in the national evaluation of the Performance Partnership Pilot is a condition of this grant award. I/we understand that the national evaluation will include an implementation systems analysis and, for certain sites as appropriate, may also include an impact evaluation. My/our participation will include facilitating site visits and interviews; collaborating in study procedures, including random assignment, if necessary; and transmitting data that are needed for the evaluation of participants in the study sample, including those who may be in a control group.

    Participate in Random Assignment: I/we agree that if our Performance Partnership Pilot or certain activities in the Pilot is selected for an impact evaluation as part of the national evaluation, it may be necessary to select participants for admission to Performance Partnership Pilot by a random lottery, using procedures established by the evaluator.

    Secure Consent: I/we agree to include a consent form for, as appropriate, parents/guardians and students/participants in the application or enrollment packet for all youth in organizations implementing the Performance Partnership Pilot consistent with any Federal, State, local, and tribal laws that apply. The parental/participant consent forms will be collected prior to the acceptance of participants into Performance Partnership Pilot and before sharing data with the evaluator for the purpose of evaluating the Performance Partnership Pilot.

    SIGNATURES Lead Applicant Print Name Signature Organization Date Partner Print Name Signature Organization Date Partner Print Name Signature Organization Date Partner Print Name Signature Organization Date Partner Print Name Signature Organization Date Partner Print Name Signature Organization Date [Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1830-0575]
    [FR Doc. 2016-09749 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152; FRL-9945-60-Region 4] Air Quality Plans; Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (EPD), on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, for inclusion into the Georgia SIP. This final action pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP submission.” The EPD certified that the Georgia SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Georgia. EPA has determined that portions of the Georgia infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, satisfies the certain required infrastructure elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152. 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:

    Michele Notarianni, 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. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected] or via telephone at (404) 562-9031.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Overview

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013.1

    1 Today, EPA is providing clarification for an inadvertent typographical error that was included in the February 5, 2016, proposed rulemaking, for this final action. In the February 5, 2016, proposed rulemaking it was stated that the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs were due no later than June 22, 2013. The 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs were actually due to EPA from states no later than June 2, 2013.

    In a proposed rulemaking published on February 5, 2016, EPA proposed to approve Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission submitted on October 22, 2013, as supplemented on July 25, 2014, with the exception of the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), for which EPA did not propose any action.2 See 81 FR 6200. The details of Georgia's submission and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before March 7, 2016. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action.

    2 Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission dated October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, is also collectively referred to as “Georgia's SO2 infrastructure SIP” in this action.

    II. Final Action

    With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's infrastructure submission submitted on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because the submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

    III. 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 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).

    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 27, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    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 L—Georgia 2. Section 52.570(e), is amended by adding an entry for “110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.570 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area
  • State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Georgia 10/22/2013 4/28/2016 [Insert citation of publication] With the exception of interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4).
    [FR Doc. 2016-09861 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 82 Thursday, April 28, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5598; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-001-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-22-02, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. AD 2012-22-02 currently requires measuring the web at station (STA) 320 and, depending on findings, various inspections for cracks and missing fasteners, web and fastener replacement, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-22-02, it was determined that there were no inspection or repair procedures included for airplanes with a STA 320 crown frame web thickness less than 0.078 inch, or greater than or equal to 0.084 inch and less than or equal to 0.135 inch. This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, replacement of the web, including related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent complete fracture of the crown frame assembly, and consequent damage to the skin. Such damage could result in in-flight decompression of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5598.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5598; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5598; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-001-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On October 19, 2012, we issued AD 2012-22-02, Amendment 39-17238 (77 FR 69739, November 21, 2012) (“AD 2012-22-02”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. AD 2012-22-02 requires measuring the web at STA 320 and, depending on findings, various inspections for cracks and missing fasteners, web and fastener replacement, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2012-22-02 resulted from reports of crown frame web cracking at left buttock line (LBL) 15.0, STA 320. We issued AD 2012-22-02 to prevent complete fracture of the crown frame assembly, and consequent damage to the skin and in-flight decompression of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2012-22-02 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2012-22-02, it was determined that there was no work included for airplanes with a STA 320 crown frame web thickness less than 0.078 inch, or greater than or equal to 0.084 inch and less than or equal to 0.135 inch.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for various inspections for cracks and missing fasteners, web and fastener replacement, and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2012-22-02, this proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2012-22-02. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraphs (h), (i), and (k) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5598.

    The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    For Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, Table 4: STA 320 Post Web Replacement Inspection of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” the conditional action statement does not include airplanes that were inspected or repaired in accordance with Part 8 of the Work Instructions. The statement should read: “All airplanes that have done the STA 320 crown frame web replacement in accordance with paragraph 3.B. WORK INSTRUCTIONS, PARTS 5 OR PART 8.” Paragraph (k) of this proposed AD applies to all airplanes on which a web replacement is done as required by paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of the proposed AD, e.g., the replacement is done as specified in Part 5 or Part 8 of paragraph 3.B., “Work Instructions,” of the service information.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 29 airplanes.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Measurement, inspection, and web replacement. [retained actions from AD 2012-22-02] 219 work-hours × $85 per hour = $18,615 Up to $21,887 Up to $40,502 per inspection and replacement $Up to 1,174,558. Post-replacement inspection [retained actions from AD 2012-22-02] 135 work-hours × $85 per hour = $11,475 per inspection cycle $0 $11,475 per inspection cycle $332,775 per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-22-02, Amendment 39-17238 (77 FR 69739 November 21, 2012), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-5598; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-001-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 13, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-22-02, Amendment 39-17238 (77 FR 69739, November 21, 2012) (“AD 2012-22-02”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of crown frame web cracking at left buttock line (LBL) 15.0, station (STA) 320 and a determination that there were no inspection or repair procedures included in AD 2012-22-02 for airplanes with a STA 320 crown frame web thickness less than 0.078 inch, or greater than or equal to 0.084 inch and less than or equal to 0.135 inch. We are issuing this AD to prevent complete fracture of the crown frame assembly, and consequent damage to the skin. Such damage could result in in-flight decompression of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Crown Frame Web Measurement for Certain Airplanes

    For Group 1, Configuration 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015: At the compliance time specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, measure the thickness of the crown frame web at STA 320, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable times specified in Table 2 and Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015.

    (h) Inspections (Web With No Repair Doubler) and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions (Including Web Replacement)

    For Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015: For airplanes with a web thickness less than 0.136 inch and no repair doubler installed on the web, at the time specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, do a detailed inspection for cracks and a general visual inspection for missing fasteners of the crown frame web at STA 320; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Do the applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015.

    (i) Inspection (Web With Repair Doubler) and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions (Including Web Replacement)

    For Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015: For airplanes with a web thickness less than 0.136 inch and a repair doubler installed on the web, at the time specified in Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, do a detailed inspection for any crack in the upper chord and lower chord of the STA 320 crown frame; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Do the applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015. At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, except as provided by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) Replace the web with a new web and do all applicable related investigative actions.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection for cracks in the upper or lower chord of the crown frame web at STA 320.

    (j) Web Replacement for Certain Airplanes

    For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015: At the applicable time specified in Table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, except as provided by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, replace the web, including doing related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (k) Post-Replacement Repetitive Inspections of Replaced Web

    Following any web replacement required by this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015: Do a detailed inspection for cracks of the web, upper chord, lower chord, and lower chord splice, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. If no crack is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015. Accomplishment of the inspections required by AD 2009-19-05, Amendment 39-16022 (74 FR 48138, September 22, 2009), terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (l) Exceptions to the Service Information With Updated Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 2 date of the service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 2, dated August 20, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, accomplish applicable actions before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

    (m) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (h), (i), and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before December 26, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-22-02), using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, dated August 27, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (h), (i), and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2784, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2011.

    (n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-91-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09647 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5597; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-009-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the upper chord of the overwing stub beams at body station (STA) 578 emanating from the rivet location common to the crease beam inner chord and the overwing stub beam upper chord. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Replacement of the overwing stub beam would terminate the repetitive inspections for cracking at the replacement location only, and post-replacement inspections would be required if the replacement was done. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the upper chord of the overwing stub beam caused by high flight cycle fatigue stresses from both pressurization and maneuver loads. Cracking of the overwing stub beam could adversely affect the fuselage structural integrity and result in possible decompression of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5597.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5597; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wade Sullivan, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6430; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5597; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-009-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received ten reports from four operators of cracks in the upper chord of the overwing stub beams at body STA 578 emanating from the rivet location common to the crease beam inner chord and the overwing stub beam upper chord on The Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes. The earliest reported crack in an overwing stub beam upper chord occurred on an airplane with 31,843 total flight cycles. Seven airplanes had a severed overwing stub beam upper chord on either the left or right side, and two airplanes had severed overwing stub beam upper chords on the left and right sides. Cracks in the upper chord of the overwing stub beams, if not corrected, could result in high flight cycle fatigue stresses from both pressurization and maneuver loads, which can cause cracking in the upper chord of the overwing stub beam at STA 559, STA 578, and STA 601. Cracking of the overwing stub beam could adversely affect the fuselage structural integrity and result in possible decompression of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015. The service information describes procedures for doing a surface high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking in the overwing stub beam upper chord at STA 559, STA 578, and STA 601, and repairs and replacement. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5597.

    The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 93 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 24 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,040 per inspection cycle $0 $2,040 per inspection cycle $189,720 per inspection cycle

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Related investigative inspection 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 per side $0 $765 per side. STA 578 Replacement 41 work-hours × $85 per hour=$3,485 per side $41,500 per side $44,985 per side. STA 578 Post-replacement inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per side $0 $85 per side.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for certain on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-5597; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-009-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 13, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all the Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the upper chord of the overwing stub beams at body station (STA) 578 emanating from the rivet location common to the crease beam inner chord and the overwing stub beam upper chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the upper chord of the overwing stub beam caused by high flight cycle fatigue stresses from both pressurization and maneuver loads. Cracking of the overwing stub beam could adversely affect the fuselage structural integrity and result in possible decompression of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in table 1 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, except as required by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD: Do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking in the overwing stub beam upper chord at STA 559, STA 578, and STA 601; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Deviation from the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, may affect compliance with the fuel tank ignition prevention requirements specified in Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation 28-AWL-11 of Document D6-38278-CMR.

    (h) Terminating Action

    Replacement of the overwing stub beam in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the STA 578 replacement location only. The post-replacement inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD are still required at the STA 578 replacement location.

    (i) Post-Replacement Inspections and Corrective Action

    For airplanes on which an overwing stub beam has been replaced at STA 578: At the applicable time specified in table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015: Do a surface HFEC inspection for any cracking in the overwing stub beam upper chord at STA 578, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015. Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, specifies a compliance time after the “original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) The Condition column of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, refers to airplanes with specified total flight cycles “at the original issue date of this service bulletin.” This AD, however, applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.

    (3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking or replace the stub beam, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (k) No Economic Inspection Required

    This AD does not require the “Recommended Economic Inspection” specified in paragraph 3.B.3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1347, dated December 9, 2015.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wade Sullivan, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6430; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09643 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4007 RIN 1212-AB32 Payment of Premiums; Late Payment Penalty Relief AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) proposes to lower the rates of penalty charged for late payment of premiums by all plans, and to provide a waiver of most of the penalty for plans with a demonstrated commitment to premium compliance. PBGC seeks public comment on its proposal.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1212-AB32, may be submitted by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 202-326-4112.

    Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory Affairs Group, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026.

    All submissions must include the Regulation Identifier Number for this rulemaking (RIN 1212-AB32). Comments received, including personal information provided, will be posted to www.pbgc.gov. Copies of comments may also be obtained by writing to Disclosure Division, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah C. Murphy, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs ([email protected]), Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This proposed rule is needed to reduce the financial burden of PBGC's late premium penalties. The rulemaking would reduce penalty rates for all plans and waive most of the penalty for plans that meet a standard for good compliance with premium requirements.

    PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from section 4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA, and section 4007 of ERISA, which gives PBGC authority to assess late payment penalties.

    Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    The penalty for late payment of a premium is a percentage of the amount paid late multiplied by the number of full or partial months the amount is late, subject to a floor of $25 (or the amount of premium paid late, if less). There are currently two levels of penalty: 1 Percent per month (with a 50 percent cap) and 5 percent per month (capped at 100 percent). The lower rate applies to “self-correction”—that is, where the premium underpayment is corrected before PBGC gives notice that there is or may be an underpayment. This proposed rule would cut the rates and caps in half (to 1/2 percent with a 25 percent cap and 21/2 percent with a 50 percent cap, respectively) and eliminate the floor.

    The rulemaking would also create a new penalty waiver that would apply to underpayments by plans with good compliance histories if corrected promptly after notice from PBGC. Under the proposal, PBGC would waive 80 percent of the penalty otherwise applicable to such a plan. Thus, the penalty would be reduced from 21/2 percent per month (with a 50 percent cap) to 1/2 percent per month (with a 25 percent cap)—the same result as if the plan had self-corrected.

    Background

    PBGC administers the pension plan termination insurance program under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under ERISA sections 4006 and 4007, plans covered by title IV must pay premiums to PBGC. PBGC's premium regulations—on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) and on Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007)—implement ERISA sections 4006 and 4007.

    ERISA section 4007(b)(1) provides that if a premium is not paid when due, PBGC is authorized to assess a penalty up to 100 percent of the overdue amount. The statute does not condition exercise of this authority on a finding of bad faith or lack of due care; it is solely based on the failure to pay.1 However, the fact that assessment is authorized (rather than mandated)—and thus that PBGC could choose not to exercise the authority at all—indicates that PBGC has the flexibility to assess less than the full amount of penalty authorized and to reduce or eliminate a penalty.2

    1 The statute provides a waiver of penalty for 60 days if PBGC finds that timely payment would cause substantial hardship, but PBGC may not grant the waiver if it appears that the plan will be unable to pay the premium within 60 days. PBGC has found no record that such a waiver has ever been granted during the agency's 40+ years of existence.

    2 In contrast, the statute requires that interest on late premiums “shall be paid” at a specified rate for the overdue period.

    PBGC has provided for the exercise of its authority to impose penalties in the premium payment regulation. Under § 4007.8 of the regulation, late payment penalties accrue at the rate of 1 percent or 5 percent per month (or portion of a month) of the unpaid amount, except that the smallest penalty assessed is the lesser of $25 or the amount of unpaid premium. Whether the 1-percent or 5-percent rate applies depends on whether the underpayment is “self-corrected” or not. Self-correction refers to payment of the delinquent amount before PBGC gives written notice of a possible delinquency. One-percent penalties are capped by the regulation at 50 percent and 5-percent penalties at 100 percent of the unpaid amount. Thus, although penalties can be significant in some cases, they are generally assessed in amounts far less than the statutory maximum.

    This two-tiered structure provides an incentive to self-correct and reflects PBGC's judgment that those that come forward voluntarily to correct underpayments deserve more forbearance than those that PBGC identifies through its premium enforcement programs.

    The premium payment regulation and its appendix also authorize waivers of late premium payment penalties. For example, § 4007.8(f) provides an automatic waiver for cases where premiums are not more than seven days late. The regulation and appendix also provide for waivers based on facts and circumstances and give detailed guidance about some specific grounds for waivers, such as where there is reasonable cause for the late payment.3 PBGC may also waive penalties where it finds that there are other appropriate circumstances.4

    3 Section 22(a) of the appendix to the premium payment regulation says that there is reasonable cause for failure to pay a premium timely if the failure arises from circumstances beyond the payer's control and the payer could not avoid the failure by the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence. Examples are provided in sections 24 and 25 of the appendix: Sudden and unexpected absence of a responsible individual, loss of records in a casualty or disaster, erroneous PBGC advice, and inability to get necessary information.

    4 See section 21(b)(5) of the appendix to the premium payment regulation.

    Proposal

    PBGC proposes to reduce penalty rates for late payment of annual (flat- and variable-rate) premiums and create a new automatic waiver of 80 percent of the higher penalty rate for plans that demonstrate good compliance.5 These changes would in effect make the penalty rate for these compliant plans the same as the lower “self-correction” penalty rate. (PBGC also proposes to make two minor wording changes in the premium payment regulation.) PBGC seeks public comment on its proposal.

    5 The proposal would not affect penalties for late payment of the termination premium under § 4007.13 of the premium payment regulation.

    Penalty Rates

    Over the years—especially in recent years—Congress has significantly increased PBGC premium rates. Since late payment penalties are a percentage of unpaid premium, the penalties have gone up in proportion to the increase in premiums. While it is not unfair to impose larger penalties for late payment of larger amounts, PBGC is sensitive to the fact that a penalty assessed today may be several times what would have been assessed years ago for the same acts or omissions involving a plan with the same number of participants and the same unfunded vested benefits.

    PBGC has good reason to believe that smaller penalties will provide an adequate incentive for compliance by premium payers. PBGC's experience has been that compliance with the premium payment requirements is influenced primarily by the consistency of PBGC's penalty assessment activities, and only secondarily by the size of penalties assessed. PBGC observes that in most cases, a late payment is inadvertent and that assessment of a penalty sparks improvement of a plan's compliance systems whether the penalty is large or small. This experience supports the conclusion that if PBGC continues its current consistent enforcement efforts, assessing significantly lower penalties will yield a satisfactory level of compliance.

    Accordingly, PBGC is proposing to cut penalty rates and caps in half, so that the lower (self-correction) rate would be 1/2 percent with a 25 percent cap, and the higher rate would be 21/2 percent with a 50 percent cap. PBGC also proposes to eliminate the floor on penalty assessments, so that if the penalty assessment formula generates a penalty less than $25, it will not be automatically inflated to the floor amount.

    Partial Waiver for Good Premium Compliance

    Applying a lower penalty rate to self-correction recognizes that it is desirable for a plan to catch and fix its own mistakes, whatever its compliance history may be. PBGC has given this matter further thought and concluded that a demonstrated commitment to premium compliance is also worthy of recognition, even if a plan corrects an underpayment (of which it is likely unaware) only after notice from PBGC. PBGC believes such a commitment is evidenced where a plan has a history of consistent compliance and acts promptly to correct an underpayment when notified by PBGC. PBGC therefore proposes to automatically waive 80 percent of penalties assessed at the higher (21/2-percent) rate where the following two conditions are satisfied.

    The first condition would be that the plan have a five-year record of premium compliance. Generally, this would mean timely payment of all premiums for the five plan years preceding the year of the delinquency, as shown by the plan's premium filings. However, a late payment would not count against a plan if PBGC did not require payment of a penalty, such as where there was a waiver of the entire penalty. A plan that was not in existence as a covered plan for the full five years would be judged on its coverage years.

    The second condition would be prompt correction. This would mean that the premium shortfall for which a penalty was being assessed was made good within 30 days after PBGC notified the plan in writing that there was or might be a problem. In other words, a plan that met the first condition would be assessed penalty at the normally applicable rate, but it could earn an 80-percent waiver (that is, a waiver of all penalty above the lower “self-correction” rate) by paying the premium shortfall within 30 days.

    Effect of Proposed Changes

    PBGC typically discovers the most common premium payment errors fairly quickly—errors like failing to pay, sending payment that doesn't match the information filed, and so forth—and generally notifies plans of their delinquencies within a month or two after the due date. Thus, a plan that corrects an underpayment before or promptly after notice from PBGC typically owes no more than a few months' penalty.

    For example, if a plan paid a $1 million premium two months late (after notice from PBGC), the penalty under the current regulation would be $100,000 (two months times 5 percent times $1 million). Under the proposed regulation, the penalty would be $50,000 (two months times 21/2 percent times $1 million). If the plan qualified for the compliant plan partial waiver, the penalty would be reduced by 80 percent, from $50,000 to $10,000.

    The effect of the proposed changes is summarized in the following table.

    Good compliance history? Monthly penalty rate if shortfall is corrected— At or before date of PBGC notice Within 30 days after PBGC notice More than 30 days after PBGC notice No 1/2 percent 21/2 percent 21/2 percent. Yes 1/2 percent 1/2 percent (after waiver) 21/2 percent. Applicability

    PBGC proposes to apply the changes described above to late premium payments for plan years beginning after 2015.

    Compliance With Regulatory Requirements Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    PBGC has determined, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

    PBGC would not expect this proposed rule to cause a significant change in premium compliance patterns. As noted above, PBGC's experience is that prompt assessment, rather than amount, is the key to using penalties as a compliance tool. A reduction in the penalty cost of late payment is unlikely to reduce the incidence of late payment, but is also unlikely to encourage late payment: No penalty is better than a low penalty. Thus, the primary effect of the proposal would be to save money for delinquent plans and reduce PBGC's penalty receipts. But PBGC assesses penalties not to generate income but to encourage compliance and sanction non-compliance. If PBGC can achieve the same level of timely payment while assessing lower penalties, higher penalties are inappropriate. And lower penalties may tend to encourage the continuation and adoption of defined benefit plans, a favorable outcome for plan participants.

    PBGC estimates that this rule would reduce penalty assessments for late payment of premiums by $2 million per year.

    This proposed rule is associated with retrospective review and analysis in PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review issued in accordance with Executive Order 13563.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act imposes certain requirements with respect to rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency determines that a proposed rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the agency present an initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the proposed rule describing the impact of the rule on small entities and seeking public comment on the impact. Small entities include small businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions.

    For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements with respect to this proposed rule, PBGC considers a small entity to be a plan with fewer than 100 participants. This is consistent with certain requirements in title I of ERISA 6 and the Internal Revenue Code,7 as well as the definition of a small entity that the Department of Labor (DOL) has used for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.8 Using this proposed definition, about 64 percent (16,700 of 26,100) of plans covered by title IV of ERISA in 2010 were small plans.9

    6 See, e.g., ERISA section 104(a)(2), which permits the Secretary of Labor to prescribe simplified annual reports for pension plans that cover fewer than 100 participants.

    7 See, e.g., Code section 430(g)(2)(B), which permits plans with 100 or fewer participants to use valuation dates other than the first day of the plan year.

    8 See, e.g., DOL's final rule on Prohibited Transaction Exemption Procedures, 76 FR 66637, 66644 (Oct. 27, 2011).

    9 See PBGC 2010 pension insurance data table S-31, http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/pension-insurance-data-tables-2010.pdf.

    Further, while some large employers may have small plans, in general most small plans are maintained by small employers. Thus, PBGC believes that assessing the impact of the proposal on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act. PBGC therefore requests comments on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

    On the basis of its proposed definition of small entity, PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the amendments in this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), sections 603 and 604 do not apply. This certification is based on the fact that small plans generally pay small premiums and thus small penalties for late payment of premiums. The average late premium penalty paid by a small plan for the 2014 plan year was about $160. This proposed rule would cut penalty payments in half, and thus create an average annual net economic benefit for each small plan of about $80. This is not a significant impact. PBGC invites public comment on this assessment.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4007

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC proposes to amend 29 CFR part 4007 as follows:

    PART 4007—PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS 1. The authority citation for part 4007 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1303(A), 1306, 1307.

    2. In § 4007.8: a. Paragraph (a) introductory text is amended by removing the words “paragraphs (b) through (g)” and adding in their place the words “paragraphs (b) through (h)”; and by removing the words “and is subject to a floor of $25 (or, if less, the amount of the unpaid premium)”; b. Paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the words “a written notice” and adding in their place the words “the first written notice”; by removing the words “1 percent” and adding in their place the words “1/2 percent”; and by removing the words “50 percent” and adding in their place the words “25 percent”. c. Paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the words “5 percent” and adding in their place the words “21/2 percent”; and by removing the words “100 percent” and adding in their place the words “50 percent”. d. Paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:
    § 4007.8 Late payment penalty charges.

    (h) Demonstrated compliance. If paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not apply, PBGC will waive 80 percent of the otherwise applicable premium payment penalty under paragraph (a)(2) of this section if the criteria in both paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section are met.

    (1) For each plan year within the last five plan years of coverage preceding the plan year for which the penalty rate is being determined,—

    (i) Any required premium filing for the plan has been made; and

    (ii) PBGC has not required payment of a penalty for the plan under this section.

    (2) The amount of unpaid premium is paid within 30 days after PBGC issues the first written notice as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    Issued in Washington DC this 21st day of April, 2016. W. Thomas Reeder, Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09960 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Parts 240 and 242 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 391 [Docket Numbers FMCSA-2015-0419 and FRA-2015-0111, Notice No. 2] Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea; Public Listening Sessions AGENCIES:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public listening sessions.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA and FRA announce three public listening sessions on May 12, 17, and 25, 2016, to solicit information on the prevalence of moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) among individuals occupying safety sensitive positions in highway and rail transportation, and of its potential consequences for the safety of rail and highway transportation. FMCSA and FRA (collectively “the Agencies”) also request information on potential costs and benefits from possible regulatory actions that address the safety risks associated with motor carrier and rail transportation workers in safety sensitive positions who have OSA. The listening sessions will provide interested parties an opportunity to share their views and any data or analysis on this topic with representatives of both Agencies. The Agencies will transcribe all comments and place the transcripts in the dockets referenced above for the Agencies' consideration. The Agencies will webcast the entire proceedings of all three meetings.

    DATES:

    The listening sessions will be held on:

    • Thursday, May 12, 2016, in Washington, DC;

    • Tuesday, May 17, in, Chicago, IL; and

    • Wednesday, May 25, in Los Angeles, CA.

    All sessions will run from 10 a.m. to noon and 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., local time. If all interested parties have the opportunity to comment, the sessions may conclude early.

    ADDRESSES:

    The May 12, 2016, listening session will be held at the National Association of Home Builders, 1201 15th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. The May 17, 2016, session will be held at the Marriott Courtyard Chicago Downtown/River North, 30 E. Hubbard Street, Chicago, IL 60611. The final session will be held on May 25, 2016, at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel and Suites, 404 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071. In addition to attending the sessions in person, the Agencies offer several ways to provide comments, as described below.

    Internet Address for Live Webcast. The Agencies will post specific information on how to participate via the Internet on the Agencies' Web sites at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/calendar and www.fra.dot.gov/ in advance of the listening session. This Notice provides more information on the listening sessions below in Section II., Meeting Participation and Information the Agencies Seek from the Public.

    Written comments. You may submit comments identified by Docket Numbers FMCSA-2015-0419 and FRA-2015-0111 using any of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; and

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for more details on how to submit written comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about the listening sessions: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy Advisor, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by telephone at 202-366-2551, or by email at [email protected]

    If you need sign language interpretation or any other accessibility accommodation, please contact Ms. Watson at least one week in advance of each session to allow us to arrange for such services. The Agencies cannot guarantee that interpreter services requested on short notice will be provided.

    For other information on Obstructive Sleep Apnea:

    FMCSA: Ms. Angela Wongus, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, by telephone at 202-366-3109, or by email at [email protected]

    FRA: Dr. Bernard Arseneau, Medical Director, Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by telephone at 202-493-6232, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket numbers for this notice (FMCSA-2015-0419 and FRA-2015-0111), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. The Agencies recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agencies can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket numbers, FMCSA-2015-0419 and FRA-2015-0111, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    The Agencies published the ANPRM on March 10, 2016 (81 FR 12642). The Agencies will consider all comments and material received before the end of the comment period on June 8, 2016, and may draft a notice of proposed rulemaking based on your comments and other information and analysis.

    Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments and any documents this preamble references as available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2015-0419 and FRA-2015-0111, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its potential rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which you can review at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

    I. Background Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On March 10, 2016, the Agencies published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting data and information regarding the prevalence of moderate-to-severe OSA among individuals occupying safety sensitive positions in highway and rail transportation, and on its potential consequences for the safety of rail and highway transportation. 81 FR 12642. The Agencies also requested information on potential costs and benefits from regulatory actions that address the safety risks associated with motor carrier and rail transportation workers in safety sensitive positions who have OSA. Id. The purpose of these listening sessions is to receive oral comments in response to the ANPRM.

    Legal Basis Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a) and 31502(b)—delegated to the Agency by 49 CFR 1.87(f) and (i), respectively—to establish minimum qualifications, including medical and physical qualifications, for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers operating in interstate commerce. Section 31136(a)(3) requires that FMCSA's safety regulations ensure that the physical conditions of CMV drivers enable them to operate their vehicles safely, and that medical examiners (MEs) trained in physical and medical examination standards perform the physical examinations required of such operators.

    In 2005, Congress authorized FMCSA to establish a Medical Review Board (MRB) composed of experts “in a variety of medical specialties relevant to the driver fitness requirements” to provide advice and recommendations on qualification standards. 49 U.S.C. 31149(a). The position of FMCSA Chief Medical Examiner was authorized at the same time. 49 U.S.C. 31149(b). Under section 31149(c)(1), FMCSA, with the advice of the MRB and Chief Medical Examiner, is directed to “establish, review and revise . . . medical standards for operators of commercial motor vehicles that will ensure that the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely.” FMCSA, in conjunction with the Chief Medical Examiner, asked the MRB to review and report specifically on OSA.

    Federal Railroad Administration

    Under 49 U.S.C. 20103, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) has broad authority to issue regulations governing every area of railroad safety. The Secretary has delegated rulemaking responsibility under section 20103 to the Administrator of FRA. 49 CFR 1.89(a). Moreover, FRA has exercised this safety authority to require other medical testing. FRA regulations require locomotive engineers (49 CFR 240.121) and conductors (49 CFR 242.117) to undergo vision and hearing testing as part of their qualification and certification at least every 3 years. There are individual medical circumstances that may lead a railroad to require some engineers or conductors to undergo more frequent testing. In addition, Congress has authorized the Secretary to consider requiring certification of the following other crafts and classes of employees: (1) Car repair and maintenance employees; (2) onboard service workers; (3) rail welders; (4) dispatchers; (5) signal repair and maintenance employees; and (6) any other craft or class of employees that the Secretary determines appropriate. Therefore, the Secretary, and the FRA Administrator by delegation, have statutory authority to issue regulations to address the safety risks posed by employees in safety sensitive positions with OSA.

    What is obstructive sleep apnea?

    OSA is a respiratory disorder characterized by a reduction or cessation of breathing during sleep. OSA is characterized by repeated episodes of upper airway collapse in the region of the upper throat (pharynx) that results in intermittent periods of partial airflow obstruction (hypopneas), complete airflow obstruction (apneas), and respiratory effort-related arousals from sleep (RERAs) in which affected individuals awaken partially and may experience gasping and choking as they struggle to breathe. Risk factors for developing OSA include: Obesity; male gender; advancing age; family history of OSA; large neck size; and an anatomically small oropharynx (throat). OSA is associated as well with increased risk for other adverse health conditions such as: Hypertension (high blood pressure); diabetes; obesity; cardiac dysrhythmias (irregular heartbeat); myocardial infarction (heart attack); stroke; and sudden cardiac death.

    Individuals who have undiagnosed OSA are often unaware they have experienced periods of sleep interrupted by breathing difficulties (apneas, hypopneas, or RERAs) when they wake. As a result, the condition is often unrecognized by affected individuals and underdiagnosed by medical professionals.

    What are the safety risks in transportation?

    For individuals with OSA, eight hours of sleep can be less restful or refreshing than four hours of ordinary, uninterrupted sleep.1 Undiagnosed or inadequately treated moderate to severe OSA can cause unintended sleep episodes and resulting deficits in attention, concentration, situational awareness, and memory, thus reducing the capacity to safely respond to hazards when performing safety sensitive duties. Therefore, OSA is a critical safety issue that can affect operations in all modes of travel in the transportation industry.

    1 Gay, P., Weaver, T., Loube, D., Iber, C. (2006). Evaluation of positive airway pressure treatment for sleep related breathing disorders in adults. Positive Airway Pressure Task Force; Standards of Practice Committee; American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Sleep 29:381-401.

    II. Meeting Participation and Information the Agencies Seek From the Public

    Each listening session is open to the public. Speakers should try to limit their remarks to 3-5 minutes. No preregistration is required. Attendees may submit material to the Agencies' staff at the session to include in the pubic dockets referenced in this notice.

    Those participating in the webcast will have the opportunity to submit comments online that will be read aloud at the sessions with comments made in the meeting rooms. The Agencies will docket the transcripts of the webcast, a separate transcription of each listening session prepared by an official court reporter, and all other materials submitted to the Agencies' personnel.

    The Agencies continue to request public comment on the questions below. In your response, please provide supporting materials and identify your interest in this rulemaking, whether in the transportation industry, medical profession, or other.

    The Problem of OSA

    1. What is the prevalence of moderate-to-severe OSA among the general adult U.S. population? How does this prevalence vary by age?

    2. What is prevalence of moderate-to-severe OSA among individuals occupying safety sensitive transportation positions? If it differs from that among the general population, why does it appear to do so? If no existing estimates exist, what methods and information sources can the Agencies use to reliably estimate this prevalence?

    3. Is there information (studies, data, etc.) available for estimating the future consequences resulting from individuals with OSA occupying safety sensitive transportation positions in the absence of new restrictions? For example, does any organization track the number of historical motor carrier or train accidents caused by OSA? With respect to rail, how would any OSA regulations and the current positive train control system requirements interrelate?

    4. Which categories of transportation workers with safety sensitive duties should be required to undergo screening for OSA? On what basis did you identify those workers?

    Costs and Benefits

    5. What alternative forms and degrees of restriction could FMCSA and FRA place on the performance of safety-sensitive duties by transportation workers with moderate-to-severe OSA, and how effective would these restrictions be in improving transportation safety? Should any regulations differentiate requirements for patients with moderate, as opposed to severe, OSA?

    6. What are the potential costs of alternative FMCSA/FRA regulatory actions that would restrict the safety sensitive activities of transportation workers diagnosed with moderate-to-severe OSA? Who would incur those costs? What are the benefits of such actions and who would realize them?

    7. What are the potential improved health outcomes for individuals occupying safety sensitive transportation positions who would receive OSA treatment due to regulations?

    8. What models or empirical evidence is available to use to estimate potential costs and benefits of alternative restrictions?

    9. What costs would be imposed on transportation workers with safety sensitive duties by requiring screening, evaluation, and treatment of OSA?

    10. Are there any private or governmental sources of financial assistance? Would health insurance cover costs for screening and/or treatment of OSA?

    Screening Procedures and Diagnostics

    11. What medical guidelines, other than those the American Academy of Sleep Medicine guidance the Federal Aviation Administration currently uses, are suitable for screening transportation workers with safety sensitive duties that are regulated by FMCSA/FRA for OSA? What level of effectiveness are you seeing with these guidelines?

    12. What were the safety performance histories of transportation workers with safety sensitive duties who were diagnosed with moderate-to-severe OSA, who are now successfully compliant with treatment before and after their diagnosis?

    13. When and how frequently should transportation workers with safety sensitive duties be screened for OSA? What methods (laboratory, at-home, split, etc.) of diagnosing OSA are appropriate and why?

    14. What, if any, restrictions or prohibitions should there be on transportation workers' safety sensitive duties while they are being evaluated for moderate-to-severe OSA?

    15. What methods are currently employed for providing training or other informational materials about OSA to transportation workers with safety sensitive duties? How effective are these methods at identifying workers with OSA?

    Medical Personnel Qualifications and Restrictions

    16. What qualifications or credentials are necessary for a medical practitioner who performs OSA screening? What qualifications or credentials are necessary for a medical practitioner who performs the diagnosis and treatment of OSA?

    17. With respect to FRA, should it use Railroad MEs to perform OSA screening, diagnosis, and treatment?

    18. Should MEs or Agencies' other designated medical practitioners impose restrictions on a transportation worker with safety sensitive duties who self-reports experiencing excessive sleepiness while performing safety sensitive duties?

    Treatment Effectiveness

    19. What should be the acceptable criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of prescribed treatments for moderate-to-severe OSA?

    20. What measures should be used to evaluate whether transportation employees with safety sensitive duties are receiving effective OSA treatment?

    Issued on: April 22, 2016. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09911 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    81 82 Thursday, April 28, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural Utilities Service Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; USDA/Rural Development-1 Current or Prospective Producers or Landowners, Applicants, Borrowers, Grantees, Tenants, and Other Participants in RD Programs AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed revision to an existing Privacy Act System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 as amended; Section 12204 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm, 5 U.S.C. 552a) Rural Development (RD) gives notice of its proposal to revise the system of records entitled USDA/Rural Development-1 Applicant, Borrower, Grantee or Tenant File.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than June 7, 2016. This system of records will be effective June 7, 2016 unless Rural Development receives comments, which would result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this notice by any of the following methods: You may submit written or electronic comments on this notice by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Submit written comments via the U.S. Postal Service to the Branch Chief, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 300 7th Street SW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Submit written comments via Federal Express Mail or other courier service requiring a street address to the Branch Chief, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 300 7th Street SW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.

    All written comments will be available for public inspection during regular work hours at the 300 7th Street SW., 7th Floor address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions, please contact: Diego Maldonado, RD Privacy Act Officer, 4300 Goodfellow Boulevard, Room 52C13, St. Louis, MO 63120-0011; 314-457-6279.

    For privacy issues, please contact: Kelvin Fairfax Chief Privacy Officer, Cyber and Privacy Policy and Oversight, Office of the Chief information Officer, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), requires agencies to publish in the Federal Register notice of new or revised systems of records maintained by the agency. A system of records is a group of any records under the control of any agency, from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to an individual.

    In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Rural Development of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to revise an existing Privacy Act system of records, which was last published in full on July 17, 1998 (63 FR 38546).

    The agency proposes to make various revisions to USDA/RD-1, including several revisions related to the receipt for services (RFS) program. Section 2501A of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 was amended by Section 14003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) to require that upon the request of a current or prospective producer or landowner, certain agencies, including agencies of the Rural Development Mission Area, provide a receipt for service concerning any benefit or service offered to agricultural producers or landowners. Section 12204 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) further modified this requirement to mandate the issuance of a receipt for service to every current or prospective producer or landowner that requests about any benefit or service provided to a customer by agencies of the Rural Development Mission Area (or denial of service). Accordingly, the receipt for service program provides inquirers, applicants, or customers of the Rural Business Cooperative Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Utilities Service with a receipt for service for certain types of transactions requested. While these routine uses allow disclosures outside USDA, and so have some impact on privacy of individuals, they are either necessary for carrying out the agency mission and minimizing waste, fraud, and abuse; are required by law; or benefit the subjects of the records. On balance, the needs of the agency and the benefits to the individuals of these disclosures justify the minimal impact on privacy. The current SORN is located at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Rural%20Development-1.txt. Rural Development proposes to revise the System of Records to reflect the following changes:

    1. A security classification is added to the System Notice.

    2. The system locations section is revised to reflect organizational and office location and responsibility changes.

    3. The categories of individuals covered by the system section is revised to reflect the Receipt for Services program.

    4. The categories of records in the system section is revised to reflect the Receipt for Services program.

    5. The authority for maintenance of the system section is revised to reflect changes in the statutory authorities.

    6. A purpose(s) section is added to the System Notice.

    7. RD proposes the following changes to the routine uses:

    a. The language of routine uses 2, 5-13, 15, 16, and 18 is revised slightly for clarity and consistency.

    b. Routine use 14 is revised to identify the system, Credit Alert Verification Reporting System (CAIVRS) that is used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the purpose of prescreening applicants.

    c. Routine use 17 is deleted.

    d. Routine use 18 is renumbered as routine use 17 and is revised slightly for clarity and consistency.

    e. New routine use 18 is added to disclose to the Department of Health and Human Services parent locator system for finding parents who do not pay child support.

    f. Routine use 19 is added to allow disclosure to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants or volunteers who are performing a service on behalf of the agency.

    g. Routine use 20 is added to allow disclosure of records to customer service agents for training and evaluation purposes.

    h. Routine use 21 is added to allow disclosure of records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons for purposes of response and remedial efforts in the event that there has been a breach of the data contained in the systems.

    i. Routine use 22 is added to comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act for public disclosure purposes.

    j. Routine use 23 is added to allow disclosure to the National Archives and Records Administration for records management purposes.

    k. Routine use 24 is added to allow disclosure to the Department of the Treasury for the purpose of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments.

    8. The policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system section is revised to reflect changes in record keeping including use of electronic records.

    9. The system manager and address section is revised to include a Web site link.

    10. The record source categories section is revised to reflect the Receipt for Services program.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Lisa Mensah, Under Secretary, Rural Development. SYSTEM OF RECORDS

    USDA/Rural Development-1.

    System name:

    Applicant, Borrower, Grantee, or Tenant File.

    Security Classification: unclassified.

    System Location:

    Each Rural Development current or prospective producers or landowners, applicants, borrowers, grantees, tenants, their respective household members, including members of associations, and other participants in RD programs. Files is located in the Local, Area, or State Office through which the financial assistance is sought or was obtained; in the Centralized Servicing Center (CSC), St. Louis, Missouri; and in the Finance Office in St. Louis, Missouri. A State Office version of the Local or Area Office file may be located in or accessible by the State Office which is responsible for that Local or Area Office. Correspondence regarding borrowers is located in the State and National Office files.

    A list of all State Offices and any additional States/Offices for which an office is responsible is as follows:

    Montgomery, AL

    Palmer, AK

    Phoenix, AZ

    Little Rock, AR

    Davis, CA

    Lakewood, CO

    Dover, DE (includes Maryland)

    Gainesville, FL (includes U. S. Virgin Islands)

    Athens, GA

    Hilo, HI (includes Western Pacific Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Marianas Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands)

    Boise, ID

    Champaign, IL

    Indianapolis, IN

    Des Moines, IA

    Topeka, KS

    Lexington, KY

    Alexandria, LA

    Bangor, ME

    Amherst, MA (includes Connecticut and Rhode Island)

    East Lansing, MI

    St. Paul, MN

    Jackson, MS

    Columbia, MO

    Bozeman, MT

    Lincoln, NE

    Carson City, NV

    Mt. Laurel, NJ

    Albuquerque, NM

    Syracuse, NY

    Raleigh, NC

    Bismarck, ND

    Columbus, OH

    Stillwater, OK

    Portland, OR

    Harrisburg, PA

    San Juan, PR

    Columbia, SC

    Huron, SD

    Nashville, TN

    Temple, TX

    Salt Lake City, UT

    Montpelier, VT (includes New Hampshire)

    Richmond, VA

    Olympia, WA

    Morgantown, WV

    Stevens Point, WI

    Casper, WY

    The address of Local, Area, and State Offices are listed in the telephone directory of the appropriate city or town under the heading, “United States Government, Department of Agriculture, and Rural Development.” The Financial Office and CSC are located at 4300 Goodfellow Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63120-0011.

    Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:

    Current or prospective producers or landowners, applicants, borrowers, grantees, tenants, and their respective household members, including members of associations and other participants in RD programs.

    Categories of Records in the System:

    The system includes files containing the names of current or prospective producers or landowners, applicants, borrowers, grantees, tenants and their respective household members, including members of associations and other participants in RD programs. It may also include their social security or employer identification number, bank routing and account numbers; and their respective household members' characteristics, such as gross and net income, sources of income, capital, assets and liabilities, net worth, age, race, number of dependents, marital status, reference material, farm or ranch operating plans, and property appraisal. The system also includes credit reports and personal references from credit agencies, lenders, businesses, and individuals. In addition, a running record of observation concerning the operations of the person being financed is included. A record of deposits to and withdrawals from an individual's supervised bank account is also contained in those files where appropriate. In some Local Offices, this record is maintained in a separate folder containing only information relating to activity within supervised bank accounts. Some items of information are extracted from the individual's file and placed in a card file for quick reference.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as amended; Section 12204 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79); AGRICULTURAL CREDIT 7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.; FARM HOUSING 42 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.; Section 901 of the Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub L. 110-246); RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELEPHONE SERVICE 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.

    Purpose(s):

    Rural Development (RD) maintains numerous information systems that are used for current or prospective producers or landowners, applicants, borrowers, grantees, tenants, and other participants in RD programs designed to help improve the economy and quality of life in rural America. These financial systems support such essential public facilities and service as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics, emergency service facilities, and electric and telephone services. Additionally, RD systems and feeder applications promote economic development by supporting loans to businesses through banks, credit unions, and community-managed lending pools. The suite of RD systems covered by this System of Records is developed and maintained by the Deputy Chief Information Officer in St. Louis, MO and the National Development Branch in Washington, DC.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the group of applications, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    1. When a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, foreign, State, local, or tribal, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative or prospective responsibility of the receiving entity.

    2. To a Member of Congress or to a Congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

    3. Rural Development will provide information from these systems to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and to other Federal agencies maintaining debt servicing centers, in connection with overdue debts, in order to participate in the Treasury Offset Program as required by the Debt Collection Improvements Act, Public Law 104-134, section 31001.

    4. Disclosure to Rural Development of name, home addresses, and information concerning default on loan repayment when the default involves a security interest in tribal allotted or trust land. Pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12701 et seq.), liquidation may be pursued only after offering to transfer the account to an eligible tribal member, the tribe, or the Indian housing authority serving the tribe(s).

    5. Disclosure of names, home addresses, social security numbers, and financial information to a collection or servicing contractor, financial institution, or a local, State, or Federal agency, when Rural Development determines such referral is appropriate for servicing or collecting the borrower's account or as provided for in contracts with servicing or collection agencies.

    6. To a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (a) The agency or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the agency has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

    7. Disclosure of names, home addresses, and financial information for selected borrowers to financial consultants, advisors, lending institutions, packagers, agents, and private or commercial credit sources, when Rural Development determines such referral is appropriate to encourage the borrower to refinance his Rural Development indebtedness as required by Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1471), or to assist the borrower in the sale of the property.

    8. Disclosure of legally enforceable debts to the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to be offset against any tax refund that may become due the debtor for the tax year in which the referral is made, in accordance with the IRS regulations at 26 CFR 301.6402-6T, Offset of Past Due Legally Enforceable Debt Against Overpayment, and under the authority contained in 31 U.S.C. 3720A.

    9. Disclosure of information regarding indebtedness to the Defense Manpower Data Center, Department of Defense, and the United States Postal Service for the purpose of conducting computer matching programs to identify and locate individuals receiving Federal salary or benefit payments and who are delinquent in their repayment of debts owed to the U.S. Government under certain programs administered by Rural Development in order to collect debts under the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (5 U.S.C. 5514) by voluntary repayment, administrative or salary offset procedures, or by collection agencies.

    10. Disclosure of names, home addresses, and financial information to lending institutions when Rural Development determines the individual may be financially capable of qualifying for credit with or without a guarantee.

    11. Disclosure of names, home addresses, social security numbers, and financial information to lending institutions that have a lien against the same property as Rural Development for the purpose of the collection of the debt. These loans may be under the direct and guaranteed loan programs.

    12. Disclosure to private attorneys under contract with either Rural Development or with the Department of Justice for the purpose of foreclosure and possession actions and collection of past due accounts in connection with Rural Development.

    13. To the Department of Justice when: (a) The agency or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or (c) the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

    14. Disclosure of names, home addresses, social security numbers, and financial information to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of evaluating a loan applicant's creditworthiness, information that will allow for the pre-screening of applicants through the Credit Alert Verification Reporting System (CAIVRS) computer matching program. An applicant shall be pre-screened for any debts owed or loans guaranteed by the Federal government to ascertain if the applicant is delinquent in paying a debt owed to or insured by the Federal government. Authorized employees of, and approved private lenders acting on behalf of, the Federal agencies participating in the CAIVRS computer matching program will be able to search the CAIVRS database.

    Explanatory Text: Credit Alert Verification Reporting System (CAIVRS) is a Federal government database of delinquent Federal debtors that when reviewed, allows Federal agencies to reduce the risk to Federal loan and loan guarantee programs. CAIVRS alerts participating Federal lending agencies when an applicant for credit benefits has a Federal lien, judgment, or a Federal loan that is currently in default or foreclosure, or has had a claim paid by a reporting agency. CAIVRS allows authorized employees of participating Federal agencies to access a database of delinquent Federal borrowers for the purpose of pre-screening direct loan applicants for credit worthiness and also permits approved private lenders acting on behalf of the Federal agency to access the delinquent borrower database for the purpose of pre-screening the credit worthiness of applicants for federally guaranteed loans. CAIVRS authority derives from the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503) as amended, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-129 (Managing Federal Credit Programs) and A-70 (Policies and Guidelines for Federal Credit Programs), the Budget and Accounting Acts of 1921 and 1950, as amended, the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, as amended, and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, as amended.

    15. Disclosure of names, home addresses, social security numbers, and financial information to the Department of Labor, State Wage Information Collection Agencies, and other Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as those responsible for verifying information furnished to qualify for Federal benefits, to conduct wage and benefit matching through manual and/or automated means, for the purpose of determining compliance with Federal regulations and appropriate servicing actions against those not entitled to program benefits, including possible recovery of improper benefits.

    16. Disclosure of names, home addresses, and financial information to financial consultants, advisors, or underwriters, when Rural Development determines such referral is appropriate for developing packaging and marketing strategies involving the sale of Rural Development loan assets.

    17. Disclosure of names, home and work addresses, home telephone numbers, social security numbers, and financial information to escrow agents (which also could include attorneys and title companies) selected by the applicant or borrower for the purpose of closing the loan.

    18. Disclosure to Health and Human Services (HHS) parent locator system for finding parents who do not pay child support: The name and current address of record of an individual may be disclosed from this system of records to the parent locator service of the Department of HHS or authorized persons defined by Public Law 93-647, 42 U.S.C. 653.

    19. To agency contractors, grantees, experts, consultants or volunteers who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity. Recipients shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).

    20. Disclosure to customer service agents for training and evaluation purposes. Information is collected during calls made by the client to the CSC Customer Service Section to discuss questions or concerns pertaining to their mortgage account(s) with Rural Development. The information discussed during the call to the CSC help desk is captured and used for training and evaluation purposes to ensure proper procedures are being followed and accurate information is provided when assisting the client.

    21. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) When Rural Development suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    22. To comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) and similar statutory requirements for public disclosure in situations where records reflect loans, grants, or other payments to members of the public: USDA will disclose information about individuals from this system of records in accordance with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282; codified at 31 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.); section 204 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347; 44 U.S.C. 3501 note), and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.), or similar statutes requiring agencies to make available publicly information concerning Federal financial assistance, including grants, subgrants, loan awards, cooperative agreements and other financial assistance; and contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders.

    23. To the National Archives and Records Administration for to the National Archives and Records Administration for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    24. To the Department of the Treasury for the purpose of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a State in a State-administered, Federally funded program, information that will allow for pre-payment eligibility review of a loan applicant through the Do Not Pay computer matching program. Authorized employees of, and approved private lenders acting on behalf of, the Federal agencies participating in the Do Not Pay computer matching program will be able to search the Do Not Pay database. The disclosure may include applicant's name, home address, Social Security Number, income/financial data, date of birth, personal telephone number, and personal email address.

    Explanatory Text:

    In order to help eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs, Federal agencies are to focus on preventing payment errors before they occur. The purpose of the Department of the Treasury's Do Not Pay program is to reduce improper payments by intensifying efforts to eliminate payment error, waste, fraud, and abuse in the major programs administered by the Federal Government, while continuing to ensure that Federal programs serve and provide access to their intended beneficiaries. Federal agencies shall thoroughly review the Do Not Pay computer matching database, to the extent permitted by law to determine applicant eligibility before the release of any Federal funds. By checking the Do Not Pay database before making payments, Federal agencies can identify ineligible recipients and prevent certain improper payments from being made. The Do Not Pay program authority derives from the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-248).

    Disclosure To Consumer Reporting Agencies:

    Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): Disclosures may be made from this system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).

    Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records in the System: Storage:

    Records are maintained in file folders at the Local, Area, State, and National Offices. All records are converted to electronic format and stored on a USDA managed certified and accredited storage repository. Once agency employees convert the paper documents to digital records, verify that the digital record is readable and successfully ported to the imaging repository the manual documents are destroyed in compliance with Rural Development regulation (shredding). Other program imaging repositories are utilized to allow multi-point access to electronic records but the manual documents are retained securely in the local office until such time as the account is considered closed per Rural Development Regulation 2033-A. At that time, the documents/case files are destroyed in a manner as outlined in Rural Development regulation. If the office cannot accommodate proper, manual file retention standards (inadequate space to secure and house documents/files that require retention), inactive documents/case files (i.e., charge-offs, pay-offs, denials, withdrawn) can be retired to the Federal Records Center. Any records shipped to the Center for retention must be clearly inventoried and marked with a destroy-by date. The destroy date is determined by the record type after it is closed (e.g., loss to the government retention is 7 years after case is closed). The retention schedule can be found at RD 2033-A and the Operational Records Manual. For further information contact the RD Records Officer. If closed/inactive files are retained at the local office until such time as they are eligible for destruction, they are stored in a secured location.

    Retrievability:

    Records are indexed by name, identification number and type of loan or grant. Data may be retrieved from the paper records or the electronic storage. All Rural Development state and field offices as well as the financial office and the Centralized Servicing Center (CSC) have the telecommunications capability available to access this subset of data.

    Safeguards:

    Paper records are kept in locked offices at the Local, Area, State, and National Offices. For electronic records and an online retrieval system at the Finance Office access is restricted to authorized Rural Development personnel. A system of operator and terminal passwords and code numbers is used to restrict access to the online system. Passwords and code numbers are changed as necessary.

    The records are protected by the confidentiality requirements of the USDA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) Cyber Security Manuals and the provisions of the Privacy Act. Only authorized USDA employees will have access to the records in this system on a need to know basis. Role based access controls are used and the systems are accessible via the USDA Intranet. Only authorized USDA personnel will have access to these records. The systems covered by this notice have been categorized as having a Moderate security categorization impact as identified in Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems. The security controls implemented within the systems will correspond with those published in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Technology Systems for a Moderate impact system.

    Users are only granted system access upon successful completion of information security training and each user is supplied with a unique and strong user-id and password. The user roles are restrictive and based on the principle of least privilege allowing for adequate performance of job functions and access to information is based on a need to know.

    Due to the financial nature of the systems covered by this notice, the systems also adhere to the security controls identified in the Federal Information Security Control Audit Manual (FISCAM). The mandatory requirements of FIPS 199 and FIPS 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems, support the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and the FISCAM supports the mandated Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management of Internal Controls.

    Moreover, Specific USDA security requirements are adhered to through the USDA Cyber Security Manuals including but not limited to: DM3545-000, Personnel Security, and DM3510-001, Physical Security Standards for Information Technology Restricted Space.

    Retention and disposal:

    Records are maintained subject to the Federal Records Disposal Act of 1943 (44 U.S.C. 33), and in accordance with Rural Development's disposal schedules. The Local, Area, State, and National Offices dispose of records by shredding, burning, or other suitable disposal methods after established retention periods have been fulfilled. (Destruction methods may never compromise the confidentiality of information contained in the records.) Applications, including credit reports and personal references, which are rejected, withdrawn, or otherwise terminated are kept in the Local, Area, or State Office for two full fiscal years and one month after the end of the fiscal year in which the application was rejected, withdrawn, canceled, or expired. If final action was taken on the application, including an appeal, investigation, or litigation, the application is kept for one full fiscal year after the end of the fiscal year in which final action was taken.

    The records, including credit reports, of borrowers who have paid or otherwise satisfied their obligation are retained in the Local, Area, or State Office for one full fiscal year after the fiscal year in which the loan was paid in full. Correspondence records at the National Office which concern borrowers and applicants are retained for three full fiscal years after the last year in which there was correspondence.

    System manager(s) and address:

    The Community Development Manager at the Local Office; the Rural Development Manager at the Area Office; and the State Director at the State Office; the Deputy Chief Financial Officer in St. Louis, MO; and the respective Administrators in the National Office at the following addresses: Administrator, Rural Housing Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 5014, South Building, Stop 0701, Washington, DC 20250-0701; Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 5045, South Building, Stop 3201, Washington, DC 20250-3201; Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 4501, South Building, Stop 1510, Washington, DC 20250-1510. Contact information can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov.

    Notification procedure:

    Any individual may request information regarding this system of records, or determine whether the system contains records pertaining to him/her, from the appropriate System Manager. If the specific location of the record is not known, the individual should address his or her request to: Rural Development, Freedom of information Officer, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0742, and Washington, DC 20250-0742.

    A request for information pertaining to an individual must include a name; an address; the Rural Development office where the loan or grant was applied for, approved, and/or denied; the type of Rural Development program; and the date of the request or approval.

    Record access procedures:

    Any individual may obtain information regarding the procedures for gaining access to a record in the system which pertains to him or her by submitting a written request to one of the System Managers.

    Contesting record procedures:

    Same as record access procedures.

    Record source categories:

    Information in this system comes primarily Credit reports and personal references come primarily from current or prospective producers or landowners, applicants, borrowers, grantees, tenant. Credit agencies and creditors.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-09938 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-23-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 229—Charleston, West Virginia; Application for Reorganization/Expansion Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the West Virginia Economic Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 229, requesting authority to reorganize and expand the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on April 22, 2016.

    FTZ 229 was approved by the FTZ Board on February 13, 1998 (Board Order 954, 63 FR 9177, February 24, 1998). The current zone includes the following site: Site 1 (24 acres)—Charleston Ordnance Center, 3100 MacCorkle Avenue SW., South Charleston.

    The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be the Counties of Boone, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, Mingo, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, Wayne, Wirt, Wood and Wyoming, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Charleston Customs and Border Protection port of entry.

    The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include existing Site 1 as a “magnet” site. The applicant is also requesting approval of the following “magnet” site: Proposed Site 2 (78 acres)—Heartland Intermodal Gateway, 401 Heartland Drive, Prichard, West Virginia. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 2 be so exempted. The application would have no impact on FTZ 229's previously authorized subzones.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    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 June 27, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to July 12, 2016.

    A copy of the application 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 Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09965 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-50-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 186—Waterville, Maine; Application for Subzone, Flemish Master Weavers' Sanford, Maine

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of Waterville, grantee of FTZ 186, requesting subzone status for the facility of Flemish Master Weavers, located in Sanford, Maine. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on April 21, 2016.

    The proposed subzone (4.80 acres) is located at 96 Gatehouse Road, Sanford, Maine. A notification of proposed production activity has been docketed separately and is being processed under 15 CFR 400.37 (Docket B-18-2016, 81 FR 22210, April 15, 2015). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 186.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 7, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 22, 2016.

    A copy of the application 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 Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or 202-482-1346.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09964 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-812] Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) for the period February 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 28, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 7, 2016, based on a timely request for review by M&B Metal Products Company, Inc.; Innovative Fabrication LLC/Indy Hanger; and US Hanger Company, LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”),1 the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam covering the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.2 The review covers 67 companies.3 On April 15, 2016, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review on all 67 companies listed in the Initiation Notice. 4 No other party requested a review of these exporter or any other exporters of subject merchandise.

    1See Petitioners' submission, “Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Vietnam: Request for Third Administrative Review,” dated February 10, 2016. Additionally, prior to initiation, the Department and counsel for Petitioners discussed duplication of names in their review request. Based on Petitioners' agreement, the Department removed a duplicate name to be initiated for review in the Federal Register. See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Irene Gorelik, Analyst, Office V, re; “Clarification of Company Names Within Petitioners' Review Request,” dated March 21, 2016.

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2015) (“Initiation Notice”).

    3Id.

    4See Petitioners' Submission re; “Third Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Vietnam—Petitioners' Withdrawal of Review Request,” dated April 15, 2016.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, Petitioners timely withdrew their request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, if appropriate.

    Notifications

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: April 20, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09880 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Subsidy Programs Provided by Countries Exporting Softwood Lumber and Softwood Lumber Products to the United States; Request for Comment AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) seeks public comment on any subsidies, including stumpage subsidies, provided by certain countries exporting softwood lumber or softwood lumber products to the United States during the period July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted within 30 days after publication of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    See the Submission of Comments section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3965.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On June 18, 2008, section 805 of Title VIII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008) was enacted into law. Under this provision, the Secretary of Commerce is mandated to submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report every 180 days on any subsidy provided by countries exporting softwood lumber or softwood lumber products to the United States, including stumpage subsidies.

    The Department submitted its last subsidy report on December 16, 2015. As part of its newest report, the Department intends to include a list of subsidy programs identified with sufficient clarity by the public in response to this notice.

    Request for Comments

    Given the large number of countries that export softwood lumber and softwood lumber products to the United States, we are soliciting public comment only on subsidies provided by countries whose exports accounted for at least one percent of total U.S. imports of softwood lumber by quantity, as classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule code 4407.1001 (which accounts for the vast majority of imports), during the period July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. Official U.S. import data published by the United States International Trade Commission Tariff and Trade DataWeb indicate that only two countries, Canada and Chile, exported softwood lumber to the United States during that time period in amounts sufficient to account for at least one percent of U.S. imports of softwood lumber products. We intend to rely on similar previous six-month periods to identify the countries subject to future reports on softwood lumber subsidies. For example, we will rely on U.S. imports of softwood lumber and softwood lumber products during the period January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016, to select the countries subject to the next report.

    Under U.S. trade law, a subsidy exists where an authority: (i) Provides a financial contribution; (ii) provides any form of income or price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the GATT 1994; or (iii) makes a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution to a person, or entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution, if providing the contribution would normally be vested in the government and the practice does not differ in substance from practices normally followed by governments, and a benefit is thereby conferred.1

    1See section 771(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Parties should include in their comments: (1) The country which provided the subsidy; (2) the name of the subsidy program; (3) a brief description (at least 3-4 sentences) of the subsidy program; and (4) the government body or authority that provided the subsidy.

    Submission of Comments

    Persons wishing to comment should file comments by the date specified above. Comments should only include publicly available information. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially due to business proprietary concerns or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments or materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not include them in its report on softwood lumber subsidies. The Department requests submission of comments filed in electronic Portable Document Format (PDF) submitted on CD-ROM or by email to the email address of the EC Webmaster, below.

    The comments received will be made available to the public in PDF on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at the following address: http://enforcement.trade.gov/sla2008/sla-index.html. Any questions concerning file formatting, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Laura Merchant, Enforcement and Compliance Webmaster, at (202) 482-0367, email address: [email protected]

    All comments and submissions in response to this Request for Comment should be received by the Department no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the above-referenced deadline date.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09887 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    On behalf of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), the Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Title: Interim Procedures for Considering Requests from the Public for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Actions on Imports from Panama.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0274.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Burden Hours: 24.

    Number of Respondents: 6 (1 for Request; 5 for Comments).

    Average Hours per Response: 4 hours for a Request; and 4 hours for each Comment.

    Average Annual Cost to Public: $960.

    Needs and Uses: Title III, Subtitle B, Section 321 through Section 328 of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) [Pub. L. 112-43] implements the textile and apparel safeguard provisions, provided for in Article 3.24 of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”). This safeguard mechanism applies when, as a result of the elimination of a customs duty under the Agreement, a Panamanian textile or apparel article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof to a U.S. industry producing a like or directly competitive article. In these circumstances, Article 3.24 permits the United States to increase duties on the imported article from Panama to a level that does not exceed the lesser of the prevailing U.S. normal trade relations (NTR)/most-favored-nation (MFN) duty rate for the article or the U.S. NTR/MFN duty rate in effect on the day the Agreement entered into force.

    The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Act provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under section 322(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under section 322(b) of the Act.

    In Proclamation No. 8894 (77 FR 66507, November 5, 2012), the President delegated to CITA his authority under Subtitle B of Title III of the Act with respect to textile and apparel safeguard measures.

    CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Panama, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile or apparel industry, subject to section 322(b) of the Act.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09927 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-045] 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Javier Barrientos at (202) 482-2243 or Paul Walker (202) 482-0413, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition

    On March 31, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of Compass Chemical International LLC (Compass or Petitioner).1 The AD petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition for the PRC.2 Petitioner is a domestic producer of HEDP.3

    1See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China, dated March 31, 2016 (the Petition) at Volumes I and II.

    2Id., at Volume III.

    3See Volume I of the Petition at 2.

    On April 5, 2016, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.4 Petitioner filed responses to these requests on April 7, 8, and 14, 2016.5

    4See the letters from the Department to Petitioner entitled, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,” dated April 5, 2016 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire) and “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions” dated April 5, 2016.

    5See the letter from Petitioner to the Department entitled, “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume I: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 7, 2016 (General Issues Supplement); see also the letter from Petitioner to the Department entitled, “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume II: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 8, 2016 (AD Supplemental Response); see also the letter from Petitioner to the Department entitled, “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume II: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 8, 2016 (Second AD Supplemental Response).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of HEDP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations.

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.6

    6See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on March 31, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is HEDP from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7

    7See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire at 2; see also General Issues Supplement at 2.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,8 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday,

    8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    May 10, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, May 20, 2016.

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must also be filed on the record of the concurrent CVD investigation.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    9See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of HEDP to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe HEDP, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, May 17, 2016. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of this less-than-fair-value investigation.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.11

    10See section 771(10) of the Act.

    11See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that HEDP, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.12

    12 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its 2015 production of the domestic like product.13 Petitioner states that it is the only known producer of HEDP in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.14

    13See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit I-1.

    14Id.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.15 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).16 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.17 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.18 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    15See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    16See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    17See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    18Id.

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.19

    19Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.20

    20See General Issues Supplement, at 2.

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; decline in shipments and production; decline in employment; decline in financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.21 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.22

    21See Volume I of the Petition, at 10-13, 19-38 and Exhibit I-5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2.

    22See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China.

    Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate an investigation of imports of HEDP from the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the initiation checklist.

    Export Price

    Petitioner based U.S. price on an offer for sale for HEDP from a Chinese producer.23 Petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.24

    23See Volume II of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit II-5; see also AD Supplemental Response at Questions 1-2 and Exhibit Supp (AD) II-5; see also Second AD Supplemental Response at the attachment.

    24Id., at 4-5 and Exhibits II-6 through II-10.

    Normal Value

    Petitioner stated that the Department has found the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) country in every administrative proceeding in which the PRC has been involved.25 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

    25Id., at 2.

    Petitioner claims that Mexico is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.26

    26See Volume II of the Petition, at 2-4 and Exhibits II-1—II-4.

    Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe it is appropriate to use Mexico as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

    Factors of Production

    In the case of chemical inputs, Petitioner explained that its major chemical inputs likely differ from those used by most HEDP manufacturers in the PRC due to differences in production processes.27 To approximate the Chinese production process (which begins with phosphorus trichloride), Petitioner used the chemical formula and known molecular weights of the various chemical inputs and resulting by-product for the Chinese production method.28 Petitioner believes that this methodology provides a reasonably accurate reflection of presumed consumption rates for Chinese HEDP producers.29 Petitioner based the FOPs for labor, energy, and packing on its own consumption rates for producing 60-percent aqueous solution HEDP (which is substantially identical to the HEDP product offered for sale in the U.S. market by a Chinese producer), as it did not have access to records of the consumption rates of PRC producers of the subject merchandise.30 Petitioner believes that these usage rates reasonably approximate those incurred by Chinese HEDP producers.31

    27Id., at 5 and Exhibit II-13; see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 6.

    28See AD Supplemental Response at Question 3; see also Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit II-13.

    29See AD Supplemental Response at Question 3.

    30See Volume II of the Petition, at 5-8 and Exhibit II-13; see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 4.

    31Id., at Exhibit II-13; see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 4.

    Valuation of Raw Materials

    Petitioner valued the FOPs for raw materials (e.g., phosphorus trichloride, glacial acetic acid, hydrochloric acid, etc.) using reasonably available, public import data for Mexico obtained from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the POI.32 Petitioner excluded all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.33 In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the average import value excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.34 The Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.

    32See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit II-16.

    33Id.

    34Id.

    Valuation of Water

    Petitioner valued water using data from the Mexican government's National Water Commission of Mexico publication, “Statistics on Water in Mexico, 2010 edition.” 35 Petitioner converted the water rates to U.S. dollars using the average exchange rate during the POI.36 Petitioner used a POI-average consumer price index adjustment to adjust water rates for inflation in Mexico.37

    35Id., at 7 and Exhibit II-19; see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 7.

    36See AD Supplemental Response at Question 7 and Exhibits Supp (AD) II-14 and Supp (AD) II-24.

    37See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit II-23; see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 9 Exhibit Supp (AD) II-15.

    Valuation of Labor

    Petitioner valued labor using the most-recently-available Mexican labor data published by the United Nations' International Labour Organization (ILO).38 Specifically, Petitioner relied on data pertaining to wages and benefits earned by Mexican workers engaged in “manufacture of other chemical products” in the Mexican economy.39 Petitioner converted to U.S. dollars using the average exchange rate during the POI.40

    38Id., at 6 and Exhibit II-17.

    39Id.

    40Id.; see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 8 and Exhibit Supp (AD) II-22.

    Valuation of Packing Materials

    Petitioner valued the packing materials used by PRC producers (intermediate bulk carriers) using import data obtained from GTA for the POI.41

    41See Volume II of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit II-15.

    Valuation of Energy

    Petitioner calculated energy usage based upon its own production experience associated with electricity and steam produced by natural gas.42 Petitioner valued electricity based on the industry rate identified in the International Energy Agency's 2015 “Key World Energy Statistics.” 43 This information was reported in U.S. dollars per unit and multiplied by Petitioner's factor usage rates.44 Petitioner valued steam based on imports of natural gas (from GTA data for the POI) converted to steam based on relevant conversion factors.45

    42Id.

    43Id.; see also Exhibit II-18.

    44Id.

    45Id., at 7 and Exhibit II-20.

    Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit

    Petitioner calculated ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses and profit based on the most recent audited financial statements for Grupo Pochteca, S.A.B. de C.V. and Subsidiaries, a manufacturer of sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP),46 which the ITC has found to be a polyphosphate chelating agent similar to HEDP.47 Petitioner contends that SHMP and HEDP are comparable merchandise; it uses SHMP because HEDP production exists only in in the United States, the PRC, India, and the United Kingdom (i.e., does not in exist in any potential surrogate country).48

    46Id., at 7 and Exhibit II-21.

    47Id., at 3-4.

    48Id., at 3.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of HEDP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for HEDP from the PRC is 96 percent.49

    49Id., at 8 and Exhibit II-24; see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 10 and Exhibit Supp (AD) II-24; see also PRC AD Initiation Checklist. Petitioner also provided a margin calculated using a normal value calculated based on its own production process and factor usage rates; however, Petitioner indicated that Chinese producers do not use this production process, see PRC AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on HEDP from the PRC, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of HEDP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we intend to make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.50 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.51 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this AD investigation.52

    50See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    51See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).

    52Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    Respondent Selection

    Petitioner named 13 companies as producers/exporters of HEDP.53 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to the investigation54 and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    53See Volume I of the Petition at 9 and Exhibit I-3.

    54See Appendix I, “Scope of the Investigation.”

    Producers/exporters of HEDP from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement & Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than March 1, 2016, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.55 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.56 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that respondents from the PRC submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.

    55See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    56 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

    Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

    {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.57

    57See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the government of the PRC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of HEDP from the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.58 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 59 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    58See section 733(a) of the Act.

    59Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 60 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.61 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    60See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    61See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR part 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.62 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petition filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.63 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    62See section 782(b) of the Act.

    63See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 20, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all grades of aqueous acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP), also referred to as hydroxyethylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4.

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2931.90.9043. It may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2811.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. While HTSUS subheadings and the CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-09881 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    On behalf of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), the Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: International Trade Administration, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.

    Title: Interim Procedures for Considering Requests under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0273.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Burden Hours: 89.

    Number of Respondents: 16 (10 for Requests; 3 for Responses; 3 for Rebuttals).

    Average Hours per Response: 8 hours per Request; 2 hours per Response; and 1 hour per Rebuttal.

    Needs and Uses: Title II, Section 203(o) of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) [Public Law 112-43] implements the commercial availability provision provided for in Article 3.25 of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement entered into force on October 31, 2012. Subject to the rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, and pursuant to the textile provisions of the Agreement, a fabric, yarn, or fiber produced in Panama or the United States and traded between the two countries is entitled to duty-free tariff treatment. Annex 3.25 of the Agreement also lists specific fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the two countries agreed are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in Panama or the United States. The items listed in Annex 3.25 are commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers. Articles containing these items are entitled to duty-free or preferential treatment despite containing inputs not produced in Panama or the United States.

    The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 3, Article 3.25, Paragraphs 4-6 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from Panama or the United States have the right to request that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement.

    Pursuant to Chapter 3, Article 3.25, paragraph 6 of the Agreement, which requires that the President publish procedures for parties to exercise the right to make these requests, Section 203(o)(4) of the Act authorizes the President to establish procedures to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Panama as set out in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) (See Proclamation No. 8894, 77 FR 66507, November 5, 2012).

    The intent of the Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and regional products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, in a timely manner, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. The procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission of requests; allow the market to indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and the public, information regarding the requests for products and offers received for those products; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; allow for careful review and consideration of information provided to substantiate requests and responses; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.

    CITA must collect certain information about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical specifications and the production capabilities of Panamanian and U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Panama, subject to Section 203(o) of the Act.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: Varies.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09926 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-046] 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698, Robert James at (202) 482-0649, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition

    On March 31, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of Compass Chemical International, LLC (Petitioner). The CVD petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition, also concerning imports of HEDP from the PRC.1 Petitioner is a domestic producer of HEDP.2

    1See “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,” dated March 31, 2016 (Petitions).

    2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2, and Exhibit I-1.

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that the Government of the PRC (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) with respect to imports of HEDP from the PRC, and that imports of HEDP from the PRC are materially injuring, and threaten material injury to, the domestic industry producing HEDP in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we have initiated a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations.

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the investigation Petitioner is requesting.3

    3See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” below.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.4

    4See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is HEDP from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see “Scope of Investigation” at Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.5

    5See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, “Petitioner for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume I: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 7, 2016 (Petition Supplemental Information).

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,6 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties, and if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaire, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, May 20, 2016, which is ten calendar days after the initial comments deadline.

    6See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments also must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigation.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).7 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    7See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD petition.8 In lieu of consultation with the Department, the GOC submitted comments to the Department on the alleged subsidy programs.9

    8See Letter of invitation from the Department regarding, “Countervailing Duty Petition on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-DIphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 7, 2016.

    9See Department Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Petition on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China: GOC Comments on Alleged Subsidy Programs,” dated April 19, 2016.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.11

    10See section 771(10) of the Act.

    11See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that HEDP, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.12

    12 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 1 Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its 2015 production of the domestic like product.13 Petitioner states that it is the only known producer of HEDP in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.14

    13See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit I-1.

    14Id.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.15 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).16 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.17 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.18 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    15See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    16See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    17See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    18Id.

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.19

    19Id.

    Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.20

    20See General Issues Supplement, at 2.

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; decline in shipments and production; decline in employment; decline in financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.21 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.22

    21See Volume I of the Petition, at 10-13, 19-38 and Exhibit I-5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2.

    22See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China.

    Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting the allegations.

    Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of HEDP in the PRC benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOC. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of HEDP from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from the GOC and various authorities thereof.

    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.23 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.24 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD investigation.25

    23See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    24See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    25Id., at 46794-95.

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on the four remaining alleged programs in the PRC.26 For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    26 Petitioner initially alleged nine subsidy programs, but subsequently withdrew allegations on five of those programs. See Volume III of the Petition, at 18-30; see also Petition Supplemental Information at 1-3.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    Following standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports of HEDP during the period of investigation. For this investigation, the Department will release U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of subject merchandise during the period of investigation under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers: 2931.90.9043. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2811.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of this Federal Register notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo/.

    Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET on the seventh calendar day after publication of this notice. Comments must be filed in accordance with the filing requirements stated above. If respondent selection is necessary, we intend to base our decision regarding respondent selection upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information within 20 days of publication of this notice.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each known exporter (as named in the Petition), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of HEDP from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.27 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 28 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    27See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

    28See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Extension of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.29 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 30 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    29See section 782(b) of the Act.

    30See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 20, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all grades of aqueous acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP), also referred to as hydroxyethylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4.

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2931.90.9043. It may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2811.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. While HTSUS subheadings and the CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-09882 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-896] Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 5, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015.1 This review covers two PRC companies, Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., Ltd. (“TMI”) and Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd. (“TMM”). The Department gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results, but we received no comments. Hence, these final results are unchanged from the Preliminary Results, and we continue to find that TMI and TMM did not have reviewable entries during the period of review (“POR”).

    1See Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 220 (January 5, 2016) (“Preliminary Results”).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 28, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra or Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3965 or (202) 482-5848, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 5, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 2 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, but no comments were received. Also, as explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department exercised its authority to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.3 As a consequence, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final results is now May 10, 2016.

    2Id.

    3See Memorandum to the File from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016.

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.

    The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 4 and are thus outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium).

    4 The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the American Society for Testing and Materials in its Annual Book for ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.

    The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 5 ; (2) magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and (3) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite.6

    5 The material is already covered by existing antidumping orders. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995); and Antidumping Duty Order: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 57936 (November 19, 2001).

    6 This third exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 investigations of magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys, because they are not combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot.

    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    As explained, in the Preliminary Results, the Department found that TMI and TMM did not have reviewable entries during the POR.7 Also in the Preliminary Results, the Department stated that consistent with its recently announced refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in part in this circumstance but, rather, to complete the review with respect to TMI and TMM and to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.8

    7See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 221.

    8See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (“Assessment Practice Refinement”) and the “Assessment Rates” section, below.

    After issuing the Preliminary Results, the Department received no comments from interested parties, nor has it received any information that would cause it to revisit its preliminary determination. Therefore, for these final results, the Department continues to find that TMI and TMM did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.

    Assessment Rates

    The Department determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.9 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    9See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    Additionally, consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases, because the Department determined that TMI and TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries that entered under TMI's and TMM's antidumping duty case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.10

    10See Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR 65694.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI and TMM, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI and TMM in the most recently completed review of the companies; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent; 11 and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    11See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 19928 (April 15, 2005).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09884 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Opportunity for U.S. Companies To Submit Smart City Products, Services, and Capabilities for Showcasing as Export Listings in the Upcoming Smart Cities, Regions and Communities: Global Tools of Engagement AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Opportunity for Listing.

    SUMMARY:

    Located within the U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration, Global Markets (GM) promotes trade and investment. GM works to improve the global business environment and helps U.S. organizations compete abroad. In furtherance of GM's mission and the U.S. Department of Commerce's strategic goal of increasing trade and investment opportunities for U.S. companies globally, GM is offering a new for-fee service for U.S. exporters to be listed in an Export Listing Guide as part of a larger Smart Cities Resource Guide inventorying the various initiatives and programming related to Smart Cities within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Export Listing Guide aims to showcase U.S. goods and services in the various sectors comprising Smart City urban development globally. For the purposes of the Export Listing Guide, `Smart City' is a broad urban development term generally referring to urban planning and infrastructure development focused around the integration of multiple information and communications technology (ICT) solutions to better manage a city's municipal operations; and to provide real time citizen feedback for enhanced city governance. General domains of Smart City products and services can be categorized as: Energy & power; water & sanitation; information and communications technology; transportation; healthcare; design & planning; infrastructure financing; environmental protection/safety; and/or governance solutions. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional detail regarding submission requirements.

    DATES:

    Submissions and payment must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 25, 2016 for publication in the 2016 edition. Please reference the `Submissions Instructions' section for submission guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit showcase pages by email to Rachael Croft, International Trade Specialist, Global Markets, at [email protected] and Vinay Singh, Senior Advisor, Global Markets, at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachael Croft, International Trade Specialist, Global Markets, U.S. Department of Commerce, Telephone: 202-482-3048 or Email: [email protected] or Vinay Vijay Singh, Senior Advisor, Global Markets, U.S. Department of Commerce, Telephone: 202-482-7948 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    U.S. industry is competitive across various infrastructure and technology sectors that contribute to global Smart City, Regional and Community development. The goal of the Export Listing Guide is to promote U.S. goods and services that can be exported to global cities as they urbanize within a broader U.S. Department of Commerce smart city resource guide.

    The U.S. Department of Commerce will publish this smart city resource guide for distribution at relevant trade fairs and exhibitions globally. The U.S. Department of Commerce will also host a digital version of the Export Listing Guide.

    Criteria To Be Eligible for Listing

    (1) A U.S. Company must meet the eligibility requirements for Global Markets/U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service for-fee export assistance services, which requires that a company be a U.S. exporter that exports or seeks to export goods or services produced in the United States. To qualify as a U.S. exporter, the submitter must be: (a) A United States citizen; (b) a corporation, partnership or other association created under the laws of the United States or of any State; or (c) a foreign corporation, partnership, or other association, more than 95 percent of which is owned by persons described in (a) and (b) above. To qualify as a good or service produced in the United States, the good or service must be either of United States origin or have at least 51% U.S. content if not of United States origin.

    (2) A U.S. Company submission should showcase currently available U.S. goods and services exportable and applicable to Smart City urban planning and infrastructure development with export potential in the following sectors: Energy & power; water & sanitation; information and communications technology; transportation; healthcare; design & planning; infrastructure financing; environmental protection/safety; and/or governance solutions. Preference may be given to submissions focused on priority global market needs in the (1) energy & power; (2) water and sanitation; and (3) transportation smart sectors leveraging state of the art technologies.

    (3) Provision of adequate information on the company's products and/or services.

    In addition to the above criteria, in making selection decisions, GM will consider the diversity of the submissions to arrive at an Export Listing Guide that will (a) represent the diversity of business sectors applicable to smart cities, as well as a cross-section of small, medium, and large-sized firms; (b) represent multiple technologies, products, and services within each sector; and (c) include new exporters in addition to companies with technologies, products, and services already implemented in foreign markets.

    COST: The cost of a showcase 8.5 x 11 inch page for a large firm, defined as a U.S. firm with more than 500 employees, is $795 per single side page. The cost of a showcase 8.5 x 11 inch page for a small or medium-sized business, defined as a U.S. company with fewer than 500 employees, is $395 per single side page. Large and small U.S. firms can submit a minimum of one single sided page and maximum two single sided pages of content priced respectively at $795 and $395 per page. These fees will cover the expenses of designing, printing and distributing the Export Listing Guide.

    SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: All interested firms should (1) first register using this link: https://emenuapps.ita.doc.gov/ePublic/newRegistration.jsp?SmartCode=6S4B; (2) After registering, a representative from Global Markets will contact you with a Participation Agreement that will need to be signed and returned to us by email. The Participation Agreement can be emailed to [email protected]; and [email protected]; (3) Please submit your showcase page(s) by email to [email protected]; and [email protected]; (4) Lastly, a representative from Global Markets will contact you to complete payment over the phone.

    U.S. companies must follow the instructions outlined below to format their submissions.

    The address and deadline for submissions are as stated above in this notice. Showcase pages must be submitted by email to ensure timely receipt and acceptance. Payment must also be received by the May 25, 2016 5:00PM EDT for inclusion of your submission. The fee will be refunded to companies whose submissions are not selected for inclusion in the Guide.

    Instructions:

    Regarding format, please email submissions as a completed showcase 8.5 x 11 inch page in a Microsoft Word document. For images and/or graphics used, including logos please use a minimum resolution quality of 300 DPI (dots per inch). All images and logos used should be included in the Microsoft Word document, they should NOT be sent as a separate attachment. Please note that listings will contain only factual information. The following information must be included within the showcase page: (1) Name of U.S. company, Web site, and contact information; (2) Brief factual description of the company; and (3) Factual information on the U.S. products and services the U.S. company wishes to highlight for export to global `Smart Cities'.

    The final publication and order will be at the discretion of Global Markets, U.S. Department of Commerce. The Export Listing Guide and future Web site will note that its contents and links do not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Commerce or the U.S. Government of any of the companies, Web sites, products, and/or services listed.

    Dated: April 20, 2016. Arun Kumar, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Global Markets & Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09883 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE582 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Stock Assessment of Alaska Sablefish; Peer Review Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has requested the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) to conduct a peer review of the agency's stock assessment of Alaska Sablefish (Anopoploma fimbria). The CIE is a group affiliated with the University of Miami that provides independent peer reviews of NMFS science nationwide, including reviews of stock assessments for fish and marine mammals. The Alaska Sablefish stock assessment is reviewed annually by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) Plan Team, and the NPFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee. The CIE review will examine whether the assessment incorporates the best scientific information available for making management decisions and provides a reasonable approach to understanding the population dynamics and stock status of Alaska Sablefish. The public is invited to attend and observe the presentations and discussions between the CIE panel and the NMFS scientists who collected and processed the data, and designed the underlying model.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held from May 10 through May 12, 2016, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The review will be held at the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute, 17109 Pt. Lena Loop Rd, Juneau, AK 99801. Visitors will need to sign in at the front desk.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dana Hanselman, 907-789-6626.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CIE panel will consist of three peer reviewers who will assess materials related to the topic, participate in a review workshop with the NMFS scientists who developed the model and the analytical approach, and produce a report. This review will be highly technical in nature and will cover mathematical details of the analytical approach. More information about the CIE is available on its Web site at www.ciereviews.org.

    Members of the public are invited to observe, and will be provided opportunities to contribute on May 10 and May 12, 2016. The final report will be available prior to the September NPFMC Plan Team meetings and will consist of individual reports from each panelist and a summary report. The results of the review will be presented during the September 2016 NPFMC Plan Team meeting, which will be announced at a later time in the Federal Register.

    Special Accommodations

    These workshops will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Pete Hagen, 907-789-6029, at least 10 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09908 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P.
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Recreational Information Program Fishing Effort Survey AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Rob Andrews, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology, (301) 427-8105 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Marine recreational anglers are surveyed to collect catch and effort data, fish biology data, and angler socioeconomic characteristics. These data are required to carry out provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended, regarding conservation and management of fishery resources.

    Marine recreational fishing catch and effort data are collected through a combination of mail surveys, telephone surveys and on-site intercept surveys with recreational anglers. Amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) require the development of an improved data collection program for recreational fisheries. To partially meet these requirements, NOAA Fisheries designed and implemented the MRIP Fishing Effort Survey (FES) to ensure better coverage and representation of recreational fishing activity.

    The FES is a self-administered, household mail survey that samples from a residential address frame to collect data on the number of recreational anglers and the number of recreational fishing trips. The survey estimates marine recreational fishing activity for all coastal states from Maine through Texas.

    FES estimates are combined with estimates derived from independent but complementary surveys of fishing trips, the Access-Point Angler Intercept Survey, to estimate total, state-level fishing catch, by species. These estimates are used in the development, implementation, and monitoring of fishery management programs by NOAA Fisheries, regional fishery management councils, interstate marine fisheries commissions, and state fishery agencies.

    II. Method of Collection

    Information will be collected through self-administered mail surveys.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0652.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 110,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 18,333 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09948 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2016-OS-0049] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the DoD Chief Information Officer, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the DoD Chief Information Officer, announces a renewal of proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please contact the DoD's DIB Cybersecurity Activities Office: (703) 604-3167, toll free (855) 363-4227, located at 1550 Crystal Dr., Suite 1000-A, Arlington, VA 22202.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DoD's Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) Activities Cyber Incident Reporting; OMB Control Number 0704-0489.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to support mandatory cyber incident reporting requirements under 10 U.S.C. Section 393 (formerly Pub. L. 112-239, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Section 941, Reports to Department of Defense on penetrations of networks and information systems of certain contractors) and 10 U.S.C. Section 391 (formerly Pub. L. 113-58, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Section 1632, Reporting on Cyber Incidents with Respect to Networks and Information Systems of Operationally Critical Contractors).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit and not for profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 350,000.

    Number of Respondents: 10,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 5.

    Annual Responses: 50,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 7 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are DoD contractors who are required to report cyber incidents to the Department of Defense. The primary means of submitting a cyber incident report is through a secure unclassified web portal, but if a company is unable to access the secure web portal it may submit a cyber incident report through other means of communication (e.g., fax, telephone, or United States Postal Service). DoD contractors report cyber incidents that affect DoD information, facilitating cyber situational awareness, cyber threat information sharing, and better protection of unclassified defense information.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09954 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; IRFlex Corporation AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to IRFlex Corporation, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the field of use of nonlinear, mid-infrared fiber and fiber devices to generate and/or guide mid-infrared sources over long distances (1-500 meters) in the United States, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent No. 8,710,470 entitled “Wavelength and Power Scalable Waveguiding-Based Infrared Laser System”, Navy Case No. 101,907 and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof.

    DATES:

    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than May 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rita Manak, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, email: [email protected] or use courier delivery to expedite response.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. C. Pan, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09956 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Certification Notice—239] Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 15, 2016, Mattawoman Energy, LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to section 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60 and 501.61. FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d) and 10 CFR 501.61(c).

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

    The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60 and 501.61:

    OWNER: Mattawoman Energy, LLC, CAPACITY: 990 megawatts (MW) PLANT LOCATION: 14175 Brandywine Road, Brandywine, MD 20613 IN-SERVICE DATE: 10/31/2018 Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2016. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10013 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2622-012] Turners Falls Hydro, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File License Application and Request To Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 2622-012.

    c. Date Filed: February 26, 2016.

    d. Submitted By: Turners Falls Hydro, LLC (Turners Falls Hydro).

    e. Name of Project: Turners Falls Hydro Project.

    f. Location: On the Connecticut River in Franklin County, Massachusetts. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Peter Clarke, Turners Falls Hydro, LLC, P.O. Box 149, Hamilton, MA 01936; (978) 468-3999.

    i. FERC Contact: Bill Connelly at (202) 502-8587; or email at [email protected]

    j. Turners Falls Hydro filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 26, 2016. Turners Falls Hydro provided public notice of its request on March 3 and March 10, 2016. In a letter dated April 22, 2016, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Turners Falls Hydro's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations there under at 50 CFR part 402 and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. Turners Falls Hydro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    m. A copy of the PAD is available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2622. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by February 28, 2019.

    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09935 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14768-000] Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice Of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted For Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 11, 2016, the Energy Resources USA Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Salamonie Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 14768-000, to be located at the existing Salamonie Lake Dam on the Salamonie River, near the town of Wabash, in Wabash County, Indiana. The Salamonie Lake Dam is owned by the United States government and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District.

    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new 15-foot by 10-foot by 90-foot-long concrete conduit; (2) a new 98-foot by 45-foot reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two 2.5-megawatt (MW) vertical Kaplan turbine-generators having a total combined generating capacity of 5 MW; (3) a new 300-foot-long by 95-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a new 60-foot-long by 50-foot-wide substation with a 6-mega-volt-ampere 4.16/69-kilovolt three-phase step-up transformer; (5) a new 2-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 13.76 gigawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, 350 Lincoln Road, 2nd Floor, Miami, FL 33139; telephone (954) 248-8425.

    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban, (202) 502-6211.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14768-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14768) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09937 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14767-000] Energy Resources USA INC.;Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications April 22, 2016.

    On March 11, 2016, the Energy Resources USA Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Monroe Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 14767-000, to be located at the existing Mississinewa Lake Dam on the Salt Creek River, near the town of Bloomington, in Monroe County, Indiana. The Monroe Lake Dam is owned by the United States government and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District.

    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new 15-foot by 10-foot by 90-foot-long concrete conduit; (2) a new 98-foot by 45-foot reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two 2-megawatt (MW) vertical Kaplan turbine-generators having a total combined generating capacity of 4 MW; (3) a new 300-foot-long by 95-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a new 60-foot-long by 50-foot-wide substation with a 5-mega-volt-ampere 4.16/69-kilovolt three-phase step-up transformer; (5) a new 3-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 13.5 gigawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, 350 Lincoln Road, 2nd Floor, Miami, FL 33139; telephone (954) 248-8425.

    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban, (202) 502-6211.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14767-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14767) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09936 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0699; FRL—9945-42-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTT) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2098.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0536), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0699, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change—including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record-keeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as well as for the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTT. This includes submitting initial notification reports, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Primary Magnesium Refining Facilities

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTT).

    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 611 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $62,700 (per year), which includes $1,200 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden hours in this ICR from the previous ICR because the regulations have not changed, and are not expected to change, in the next three years. There is, however, a small adjustment increase in the estimated labor costs as due to an update in labor rates.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09894 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [CERCLA-04-2016-3752; FRL-9945-87-Region 4] Forshaw Chemicals Superfund Site; Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Notice of Settlement AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of settlement.

    SUMMARY:

    Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into a settlement with James R. Forshaw and Wood Protection Products, Inc., concerning the Forshaw Chemicals Superfund Site located in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site.

    DATES:

    The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until May 31, 2016. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:

    Internet: https://www.epa.gov/nc/public-notice-settlement-concerning-forshaw-chemicals-superfund-site.

    U.S. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

    Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paula V. Painter at 404-562-8887.

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Anita L. Davis, Chief, Enforcement and Community Engagement Branch, Superfund Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09998 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0703; FRL-9945-61-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDDD) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2354.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0635), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0703, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed either online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as well as for the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDDD. This includes submitting initial notification reports, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Prepared feeds manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDDD).

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,800 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 64,100 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $6,490,000 (per year), which includes $37,200 in either annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the respondent labor hours and cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is not due to program changes. The increase occurred because this ICR assumes all existing respondents will take some time each year to re-familiarize with the regulatory requirements. Additionally, there is a small decrease of $36 in the estimated O&M cost due to rounding. This ICR rounds all calculated burden and costs to three significant digits. There is no change in the methodology or assumption used to calculate O&M cost.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09903 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0854: FRL-9945-88-Region 10] Adequacy Determination for the Medford, Oregon Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of adequacy determination.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public of its finding that the Medford, Oregon second 10-year limited maintenance plan (LMP) for carbon monoxide (CO) is adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The LMP was submitted to the EPA by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ or the State) on December 11, 2015, and a supplement was submitted on December 30, 2015. As a result of our adequacy finding, regional emissions analyses will no longer be required as part of the transportation conformity determinations for CO for the Medford area.

    DATES:

    This finding is effective May 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The finding will be available at the EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. You may also contact Dr. Karl Pepple, U.S. EPA, Region 10 (OAWT-107), 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle WA 98101; (206) 553-1778; or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This action provides notice of the EPA's adequacy finding regarding the second 10-year CO limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the Medford area for purposes of transportation conformity. The EPA's finding was made pursuant to the adequacy review process for implementation plan submissions delineated at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) under which the EPA reviews the adequacy of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission prior to the EPA's final action on the implementation plan.

    The State submitted the LMP to the EPA on December 11, 2015, and submitted a supplement to EPA on December 30, 2015. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1), the EPA notified the public of its receipt of this plan and its review for an adequacy determination on the EPA's Web site and requested public comment by no later than February 22, 2016. The EPA received no comments on the plan during the comment period. As part of our analysis, we also reviewed the State's compilation of public comments and response to comments that were submitted during the State's public process for the LMP. There were no applicable adverse comments directed at the on-road portion of the LMP.

    Based on our review, the EPA believes it is appropriate to find this LMP adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations prior to final action on the LMP. The EPA notified ODEQ in a letter dated March 1, 2016 (adequacy letter), subsequent to the close of the EPA comment period, that the EPA had found the LMP to be adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations. A copy of the adequacy letter and its enclosure are available in the docket for this action and at the EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.109(e), limited maintenance plans are not required to contain on-road motor vehicle emissions budgets. Accordingly, as a result of this adequacy finding, regional emissions analyses will no longer be required as a part of the transportation conformity determinations for CO for the Medford area. However, other conformity requirements still remain such as consultation (40 CFR 93.112), transportation control measures (40 CFR 93.113), and project level analysis (40 CFR 93.116).

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. Transportation conformity to a SIP means that on-road transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The minimum criteria by which we determine whether a SIP is adequate for conformity purposes are specified at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The EPA's analysis of how the LMP satisfies these criteria is found in the adequacy letter and its enclosure.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401-767Iq.

    Dated: April 19, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09968 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0677; FRL-9945-26-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978 (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978 (40 CFR part 60, subpart K) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1797.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0442), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30 2016. Public comments were requested previously via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0677, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, as well as for the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 60, subpart K. This includes submitting initial notifications and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities with petroleum liquids storage vessels.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60 Subpart K).

    Estimated number of respondents: 69 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Total estimated burden: 321 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $32,200 (per year), which includes $0 for both annualized capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is a substantial decrease in burden from the previous ICR due to a decrease in the number of sources. Many storage vessels have been modified and become subject to Subpart Kb. Based on information obtained from the Agency's 2011 Petroleum Refinery ICR, the number of facilities subject to this regulation has decreased from 220 to 69. The update in source count results in a decrease in the labor hours, labor costs, and number of responses.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09889 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0693; FRL-9945-36-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2050.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0538), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0693, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as well as for the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR. This includes submitting initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Taconite iron ore processing plants.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR).

    Estimated number of respondents: 4 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 276 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $326,000 (per year), which includes $298,000 in either annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the respondent labor hours and the number of responses as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The decrease is due to a decline in the number of respondents. The previous ICR estimated eight facilities; however, recent industry information indicates that only half of these facilities are now in operation.

    There is, however, an adjustment increase in the respondent O&M costs. There is not an actual increase in cost; rather, the increases occurred because this ICR accounts for contractor costs associated with Method 5 PM tests as an O&M cost, while the previous ICR accounted for this cost as a labor cost.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09893 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9945-90-ORD] Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of Three New Reference Methods and Three New Equivalent Methods AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of the designation of three new reference methods and three new equivalent methods for monitoring ambient air quality.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated, in accordance with 40 CFR part 53, three new reference methods and three new equivalent methods. The reference methods include one for measuring concentrations of PM10, one for measuring PM10-2.5, and one for measuring ozone (O3) in ambient air. The three equivalent methods are for measuring PM2.5 concentrations in ambient air.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods and Measurement Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQSs. A list of all reference or equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.

    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference method for measuring pollutant concentrations of PM10, one new reference method for measuring pollutant concentrations of PM10-2.5, one for measuring ozone (O3), and three new equivalent methods for measuring pollutant concentrations of PM2.5 in the ambient air. These designations are made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291-65468).

    The new reference method for O3 is an automated method that utilizes a measurement principle based on non-dispersive ultraviolet absorption photometry. The newly designated reference method for O3 is identified as follows:

    RFOA-0216-230, “Teledyne Advanced Pollution Instrumentation, Model 265E or T265 Chemiluminescence Ozone Analyzer,” operated on any full scale range between 0-100 ppb and 0-1000 ppb, with any range mode (Single, Dual, or AutoRange), at any ambient temperature in the range of 5 °C to 40 °C, and with a TFE filter or a Kynar® DFU in the sample air inlet, operated with a sample flow rate of 500 ± 50 cm3/min (sea level), with the dilution factor set to 1, with Temp/Press compensation ON, and in accordance with the appropriate associated instrument manual, and with or without any of the following options: Internal or external sample pump, Sample/Cal valve option, Rack mount with or without slides, analog input option, 4-20 mA isolated current loop output. Note 2 applies to the following Teledyne Advanced Pollution Instrumentation Models 265E and T265.

    The application for a reference method determination for this candidate method was received by the Office of Research and Development on February 2, 2016. The analyzer is commercially available from the applicant, Teledyne Advanced Pollution Instrumentation, Inc., 9480 Carroll Park Drive, San Diego, CA 92121-2251.

    The new reference method for PM10 is a manual monitoring method based on a particular PM10 sampler and is identified as follows:

    RFPS-0216-231, “Met One Instruments, Inc. E-FRM,” configured for filter sampling of ambient particulate matter using the US EPA PM10 inlet specified in 40 CFR part 50 appendix L, Figs. L-2 thru L-19, with a flow rate of 16.67 L/min, using 47 mm PTFE membrane filter media, and operating with firmware version R2.0.1 and later, and operated in accordance with the Met One E-FRM PM10 operating manual. This designation applies to PM10 measurements only.

    The new PM10-2.5 reference method utilizes a pair of filter samplers than have been designated individually as reference methods, one for PM2.5 and the other one for PM10, and have been shown to meet the requirements specified in appendix O of 40 CFR part 50. The PM2.5 and PM10 samplers are designated as reference methods RFPS-0315-221 and RFPS-0216-231, respectively. The newly designated PM10-2.5 sampler is identified as follows:

    RFPS-0316-232, “Met One Instruments, Inc. E-FRM-PM10 and E-FRM-PM2.5 Sampler Pair” for the determination of coarse particulate matter as PM10-2.5, consisting of a pair of Met One Instruments, Inc. E-FRM samplers, with one being the E-FRM PM2.5 sampler (RFPS-0315-221) and the other being the E-FRM PM10 sampler (RFPS-0216-231). The units are to be collocated to within 1-4 meters of one another and sample concurrently. Both units are operated in accordance with the associated E-FRM instruction manual. This designation applies to PM10-2.5 measurements only.

    One newly designated equivalent method for PM2.5 is a manual monitoring method based on a particular PM2.5 sampler and is identified as follows:

    EQPS-0316-235, “Met One Instruments, Inc. E-FRM,” configured for filter sampling of ambient particulate matter using the US EPA PM10 inlet specified in 40 CFR 50 Appendix L, Figs. L-2 thru L-19, equipped with a URG-2000-30EGN Cyclone particle size separator, and operated for a continuous 24-hour sample period at a flow rate of 16.67 liters/minute, using 47 mm PTFE membrane filter media, and operating with firmware version R1.1.0 and later, and operated in accordance with the Met One E-FRM PM2.5 operating manual.

    The application for reference method determination for the PM10 method was received by the Office of Research and Development on February 4, 2016, the PM10-2.5 method application was received on March 21, 2016, and the equivalent PM2.5 method was received on March 28, 2016. These monitors are commercially available from the applicant, Met One Instruments, Inc., 1600 Washington Blvd., Grants Pass, OR 97526.

    Two newly designated equivalent methods for PM2.5 are manual monitoring method based on particular PM2.5 samplers and are identified as follows:

    EQPS-0316-233, “URG-MASS100 Single PM2.5 Sampler,” operated with software (firmware) version 4B or 5.0.1, configured for “Single 2.5” operation with a URG-2000-30EGN Cyclone particle size separator, and operated for a continuous 24-hour sample period at a flow rate of 16.67 liters/minute, and in accordance with the URG-MASS100 Operator's Manual and with the requirements and sample collection filters specified in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L.

    EQPS-0316-234, “URG-MASS300 Sequential PM2.5 Sampler,” operated with software (firmware) version 4B or 5.0.1, configured for “Multi 2.5” operation with a URG-2000-30EGN Cyclone particle size separator, and operated for a continuous 24-hour sample period at a flow rate of 16.67 liters/minute, and in accordance with the URG-MASS300 Operator's Manual and with the requirements and sample collection filters specified in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L.

    These applications for equivalent method determinations for the PM2.5 methods were received by the Office of Research and Development on March 21, 2016. These monitors are commercially available from the applicant, URG Corporation, 116 S. Merritt Mill Rd., Chapel Hill, NC 27516.

    Representative test monitors have been tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in accordance with part 53, that these methods should be designated as a reference or equivalent methods.

    As designated reference and equivalent methods, these methods are acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, the methods must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational settings) specified in the designated method description (see the identification of the method above).

    Use of the methods also should be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program,” EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.

    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurements Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

    Designation of these reference and equivalent methods are intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant.

    Dated: April 19, 2016. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10006 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0182, FRL-9945-86-OLEM] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; 2017 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), 2017 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification. (EPA ICR No. 0976.18, OMB Control No. 2050-0024 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2017. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0024, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: Section 3002 of RCRA requires hazardous waste generators to report, at least every 2 years, the quantity and nature of hazardous waste generated and managed during that reporting cycle. Section 3004 requires treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) to report any waste received. This is mandatory reporting. The information is collected via the Hazardous Waste Report (EPA Form 8700-13 A/B). This form is also known as the “Biennial Report” form.

    Section 3010 of RCRA requires any person who generates or transports regulated waste or who owns or operates a facility for the treatment, storage, or disposal of regulated waste to notify the EPA of their activities, including the location and general description of activities and the regulated wastes handled. The entity is then issued an EPA Identification number. Entities use the Notification Form (EPA Form 8700-12) to notify EPA of their hazardous waste activities. This form is also known as the “Notification” form. On January 13, 2015, EPA published the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) final rule (80 FR 1694), which revised the regulations related to certain exclusions from solid and hazardous waste regulation. Changes have been made to the Notification form to reflect this final rule.

    Section 3005 of RCRA requires TSDFs to obtain a permit. To obtain the permit, the TSDF must submit an application describing the facility's operation. The RCRA Hazardous Waste Part A Permit Application form (EPA Form 8700-23) defines the processes to be used for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; the design capacity of such processes; and the specific hazardous wastes to be handled at the facility. This form is also known as the “Part A” form.

    Redline-strikeout versions of all three forms are available in the docket for this notice.

    Form numbers: 8700-12, 8700-13A/B, and 8700-23.

    Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit as well as State, Local, or Tribal governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA Sections 3002, 3304, 3005, 3010).

    Estimated number of respondents: 50,692.

    Frequency of response: Biennially.

    Total estimated burden: 619,489 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $25,530,368 (per year), includes $285,088 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

    Dated: April 19, 2016. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10007 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0642; FRL-9945-74-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Chemical Preparations Industry (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Chemical Preparations Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2356.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0636), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public comments were requested previously, via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116), on June 5, 2015—during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0642, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions, to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually at a minimum.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Chemical preparation facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB).

    Estimated number of respondents: 26 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 2,210 hours (per year). “Burden” is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $223,000 (per year), which includes $390 in either annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in respondent labor hours in this ICR from the most recently approved ICR. This is due to assuming all existing sources will have to re-familiarize themselves with the regulatory requirements each year.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09904 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HA-OAR-2003-0039; FRL—9945-85-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the HCFC Allowance System (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the HCFC Allowance System” (EPA ICR No. 2014.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0498) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 76474) on December 9, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-039 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), {by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Burchard, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6205T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9126; fax number: (202) 343-2338; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The international treaty The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) and Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) established limits on total U.S. production, import, and export of class I and class II controlled ozone depleting substances (referred to hereinafter as “controlled substances”). Under its Protocol commitments, the United States was obligated to cease production and import of class I controlled substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) with exemptions for essential uses, critical uses, previously-used material, and material that is transformed, destroyed, or exported to developing countries. The Protocol also establishes limits and reduction schedules leading to the eventual phaseout of class II controlled substances (i.e., hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFCs).

    The U.S. is obligated to limit HCFC consumption (defined by the Protocol as production plus imports, minus exports). The schedule called for a 35 percent reduction on January 1, 2004, followed by a 75 percent reduction on January 1, 2010, a 90 percent reduction on January 1, 2015, a 99.5 percent reduction on January 1, 2020, and a total phaseout on January 1, 2030. EPA is responsible for administering the phaseout. To ensure U.S. compliance with these limits and restrictions, EPA established an allowance system to control U.S. production and import of HCFCs by granting control measures referred to as baseline and calendar-year allowances. Baseline allowances are based on the historical activity of individual companies. Calendar-year allowances allow holders to produce and/or import controlled substances in a given year and are allocated as a percentage of baseline.

    There are two types of baseline and calendar-year allowances: consumption and production allowances. Since each allowance is equal to 1 kilogram of HCFC, EPA is able to monitor the quantity of HCFCs being produced, imported and exported. Transfers of production and consumption allowances among producers and importers are allowed and are tracked by EPA. The above-described limits and restrictions are monitored by EPA through the recordkeeping and reporting requirements established in the regulations in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. To submit required information, regulated entities can download reporting forms from EPA's Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/record), complete them, and send them to EPA electronically, via mail, courier, or fax. Upon receipt of the reports, the data is entered into the ODS Tracking System. The ODS Tracking System is a secure database that maintains the data submitted to EPA and helps the agency: (1) Maintain oversight over total production and consumption of controlled substances; (2) monitor compliance with limits and restrictions on production, imports, and trades and specific exemptions from the phaseout for individual U.S. companies; and (3) assess, and report on, compliance with U.S. obligations under the Montreal Protocol. EPA has implemented an electronic reporting system that allows regulated entities to prepare and submit data electronically. Coupled with the widespread use of the standardized forms, electronic reporting has improved data quality and made the reporting process efficient for both reporting companies and EPA. Most reporting is done electronically.

    Pursuant to regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, reporting businesses are entitled to assert a business confidentiality claim covering any part of the submitted business information as defined in 40 CFR 2.201(c). EPA's practice is to manage the reported information as confidential business information.

    Respondents/affected entities: Companies that produce, import, and export class II controlled ozone depleting substances.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments).

    Estimated number of respondents: 40.

    Frequency of response: Annually, quarterly, or as needed.

    Total estimated burden: 1,434 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $153,264 (per year), includes $1,155 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in estimates: The respondent numbers changed because the reporting community continues to change as ODS are phased out in the US. Specifically, we estimate fewer companies reporting on imports and exports of Class II ODS. We also assume fewer companies reporting on the destruction and transformation of this material.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09890 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0205; FRL-9945-49] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Application for New Active Ingredient AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received an application to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on this application.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0205, 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: 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    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.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, EPA seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Registration Application

    EPA has received an application to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on this application. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by EPA on this application. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation Web site for additional information on this process https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/public-participation-process-registration-actions. EPA received the following application to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any currently registered pesticide products:

    File Symbol: 89668-U. Applicant: MosquitoMate, Inc., 2520 Regency Rd., Lexington, KY 40503. Product Name: ZAP Males. Active Ingredient: Microbial pesticide—Wolbachia pipientis, ZAP Strain at 100.0%. Proposed Use: For use in non-biting, male Aedes albopictus (Asian tiger mosquito) to be released to mate with indigenous/wild female Asian tiger mosquitoes in order to control this specific species of mosquito through population suppression by prevention of egg hatch.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Mark A. Hartman, Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09966 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0702; FRL-9945-55-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Area Sources: Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals-Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Area Sources: Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals-Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2240.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0596), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0702, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed either online at www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as well as the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEEE, FFFFFF, and GGGGGG. This includes submitting initial notification reports, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with these standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Primary copper smelters, secondary copper smelters, and primary zinc or beryllium production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEEE, FFFFFF and GGGGGG).

    Estimated number of respondents: 5 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially.

    Total estimated burden: 74 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $7,400 (per year), which includes $0 for both annualized capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the estimates: There is a small adjustment increase in respondent burden hours and cost as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The increase is due to a change in assumption. In this ICR, we assume all existing sources will take some time each year to re-familiarize themselves with the regulatory requirements.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09895 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, April 28, 2016 April 21, 2016.

    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, April 28, 2016, which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS TITLE: Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology (GN Docket No. 15-178).
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on proposals to support real-time text communications over Internet Protocol communications networks, to improve the accessibility of these networks for consumers who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, and speech disabled.
  • 2 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Investigation of Certain Price Cap Local Exchange Carrier Business Data Services Tariff Pricing Plans (WC Docket No. 15-247); Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers (WC Docket No. 05-25); and AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to Reform Regulations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services (RM-10593).
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Tariff Investigation Order and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing a new regulatory framework for the provision of business data services.
  • 3 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND OFFICE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY TITLE: Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band (GN Docket No. 12-354).
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an Order on Reconsideration and a Second Report and Order that will finalize rules for the innovative spectrum sharing regime it created for making 150 megahertz available in the 3.5 GHz band.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Consent Agenda The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually: 1 MEDIA TITLE: Wilfredo G. Blanco-Pi, Application for a New AM Booster Station at Guayama, Puerto Rico.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Wilfredo G. Blanco-Pi seeking review of a Media Bureau letter decision.
  • 2 MEDIA TITLE: Edward A. Schober, Application for Construction Permit for New FM Translator Station W250BA, at Manahawkin, New Jersey.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Edward A. Schober seeking review of an Audio Division, Media Bureau decision.
  • 3 MEDIA TITLE: Powell Meredith Communications Company, Application for a New AM Broadcast Station at Paradise, Nevada.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Powell Meredith Communications Company seeking review of a Media Bureau letter decision.
  • 4 MEDIA TITLE: WKMJ Radio Live The People Station, Inc., Application for a Construction Permit for a new LPFM Station at Pinellas Park, Florida.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning a Petition for Reconsideration filed by WKMJ Radio Live the People Station, Inc., seeking review of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order.
  • 5 MEDIA TITLE: US Pro Descubierta, Application for a New LPFM Station at Seffner, Florida.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by U.S. Pro Descubierta seeking review of a Media Bureau letter decision.
  • 6 ENFORCEMENT TITLE: Enforcement Bureau Action.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider whether to take an enforcement action.
  • 7 ENFORCEMENT TITLE: Enforcement Bureau Action.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider whether to take an enforcement action.
  • 8 ENFORCEMENT TITLE: Enforcement Bureau Action.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider whether to take an enforcement action.
  • The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09929 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors met in open session at 10:05 a.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, to consider the following matters:

    SUMMARY AGENDA:

    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings. Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Final Rulemaking: Revisions to Part 341 of the FDIC's Rules and Regulations Requiring the Registration of Securities Transfer Agents. Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors. DISCUSSION AGENDA:

    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Incentive-based Compensation Arrangements. Memorandum and resolution re: Deposit Insurance Assessments for Small Banks.

    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; and that no earlier notice of the meeting than that previously provided on April 20, 2016, was practicable.

    By the same majority vote, the Board also determined that Corporation business required the addition to the agenda for consideration at the meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public, of the following matter and that no notice earlier than April 22, 2016, of the change in subject matter of the meeting was practicable:

    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Liquidity Risk Standards for Certain FDIC Supervised Institutions.

    The meeting was held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: April 26, 2016. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10089 Filed 4-26-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 11:05 a.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.

    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), concurred in by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).

    Dated: April 26, 2016. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10088 Filed 4-26-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice April 25, 2016. TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 4, 2016.

    PLACE:

    The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

    STATUS:

    Closed.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commission will consider and act upon the following in closed session: Secretary of Labor v. Newtown Energy, Inc., Docket No. WEVA 2011-283 (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred by concluding that the violation in question was not significant and substantial and was not the result of an unwarrantable failure to comply.)

    Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

    Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09996 Filed 4-26-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 23, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. BOK Financial Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of MBT Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Missouri Bank and Trust Company, both in Kansas City, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 25, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09942 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    TIME AND DATE:

    2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2016.

    PLACE:

    Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th Street entrance between Constitution Avenue and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    STATUS:

    Open.

    On the day of the meeting, you will be able to view the meeting via webcast from a link available on the Board's public Web site. You do not need to register to view the webcast of the meeting. A link to the meeting documentation will also be available approximately 20 minutes before the start of the meeting. Both links may be accessed from the Board's public Web site at www.federalreserve.gov.

    If you plan to attend the open meeting in person, we ask that you notify us in advance and provide your name, date of birth, and social security number (SSN) or passport number. You may provide this information by calling 202-452-2474 or you may register online. You may pre-register until close of business on Monday, May 2, 2016. You also will be asked to provide identifying information, including a photo ID, before being admitted to the Board meeting. The Public Affairs Office must approve the use of cameras; please call 202-452-2955 for further information. If you need an accommodation for a disability, please contact Penelope Beattie on 202-452-3982. For the hearing impaired only, please use the Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) on 202-263-4869.

    Privacy Act Notice: The information you provide will be used to assist us in prescreening you to ensure the security of the Board's premises and personnel. In order to do this, we may disclose your information consistent with the routine uses listed in the Privacy Act Notice for BGFRS-32, including to appropriate federal, state, local, or foreign agencies where disclosure is reasonably necessary to determine whether you pose a security risk or where the security or confidentiality of your information has been compromised. We are authorized to collect your information by 12 U.S.C. 243 and 248, and Executive Order 9397. In accordance with Executive Order 9397, we collect your SSN so that we can keep accurate records, because other people may have the same name and birth date. In addition, we use your SSN when we make requests for information about you from law enforcement and other regulatory agency databases. Furnishing the information requested is voluntary; however, your failure to provide any of the information requested may result in disapproval of your request for access to the Board's premises. You may be subject to a fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for any false statements you make in your request to enter the Board's premises.

    Matters to be Considered:

    Discussion Agenda:

    1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Net Stable Funding Ratio.

    2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Restrictions on Qualified Financial Contracts of Systemically Important U.S. Banking Organizations and the U.S. Operations of Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations.

    Notes:

    1. The staff memo to the Board will be made available to attendees on the day of the meeting in paper and the background material will be made available on a compact disc (CD). If you require a paper copy of the entire document, please call Penelope Beattie on 202-452-3982. The documentation will not be available until about 20 minutes before the start of the meeting.

    2. This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those unable to attend. The webcast recording and a transcript of the meeting will be available after the meeting on the Board's public Web site http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/boardmeetings/ or if you prefer, a CD recording of the meeting will be available for listening in the Board's Freedom of Information Office, and copies can be ordered for $4 per disc by calling 202-452-3684 or by writing to: Freedom of Information Office, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    For More Information Please Contact: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    You may access the Board's public Web site at www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open meeting.)

    Dated: April 26, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10026 Filed 4-26-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

    The comment period for this application has been extended. Comments regarding this application must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 16, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Allen M. Brown, Banking Supervisor) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

    1. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, Columbus, Ohio; to acquire FirstMerit Corporation, and thereby acquire control of its subsidiary bank, FirstMerit Bank, N.A., both in Akron, Ohio.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 22, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09920 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-00XX; Docket No. 2015-0001; Sequence No. 26] Submission for OMB Review; Simplifying Federal Award Reporting AGENCY:

    Federal Acquisition Service; General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding a new request for an 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 new information collection requirement regarding OMB Control No: 3090-00XX; Simplifying Federal Award Reporting. A 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 73187 on November 24, 2015. One comment was received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: May 31, 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 for “Information Collection 3090-00xx; Simplifying Federal Award Reporting”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-00XX; Simplifying Federal Award Reporting”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-00xx; Simplifying Federal Award Reporting” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-00XX, Simplifying Federal Award Reporting.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-00XX; Simplifying Federal Award Reporting, 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. Kenneth Goldman, GSA, at telephone 202-779-2265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The President's Management Agenda includes objectives for creating a twenty-first century government that delivers better results to the American people in a more efficient manner. Leveraging information technology capabilities to reduce reporting burden is key to achieving these goals. Section 5 of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. 113-101) requires a pilot program to develop recommendations for standardizing reporting, eliminating unnecessary duplication, and reducing compliance costs for recipients of Federal awards.

    The pilot participants are required to provide requested reports as well as the cost to collect the data via the pilot. The proposed pilot program will provide an alternative submission method for existing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements, and assess the pilot results against the existing FAR-required method.

    B. Discussion and Analysis

    Comment: “The best way to simplify these numerous, massive, expensive awards is to shut them all down. They are all fake and mean nothing so who will miss them. Certainly we all know they are fake. They are voted on not because the awarded has done anything noteworthy. They are simply awards for being alive. They all need to be cut. The budget for giving awards should be zero, totally zero.”

    Response: Thank you for reviewing the Federal Register Notice. The comment addresses awards that are part of a voting process which appears to be associated with individual personnel awards. However, the Federal Register Notice focuses on streamlining reporting burden for Federal contract awards. If the comment is intended to address Federal contract awards, the commenter is encouraged to visit the Chief Acquisition Officers Council (CAOC) National Dialogue: Improving Federal Procurement and Grants Processes to engage in a more robust discussion (link: https://cxo.dialogue2.cao.gov/ ).

    C. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 720.

    Responses per Respondent: 3 each week.

    Total Annual Responses: 2160.

    Hours per Response: .5.

    Total Burden Hours: 56,160.

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information 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; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    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-XXXX, Simplifying Federal Award Reporting, in all correspondence.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. David A. Shive, Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09912 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10527] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 27, 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 the 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-10527 Annual Eligibility Redetermination, Product Discontinuation and Renewal Notices

    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: Revision a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Annual Eligibility Redetermination, Product Discontinuation and Renewal Notices; Use: Section 1411(f)(1)(B) of the Affordable Care Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish procedures to redetermine the eligibility of individuals on a periodic basis in appropriate circumstances. Section 1321(a) of the Affordable Care Act provides authority for the Secretary to establish standards and regulations to implement the statutory requirements related to Exchanges, QHPs and other components of title I of the Affordable Care Act. Under section 2703 of the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act, and sections 2712 and 2741 of the PHS Act, enacted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets must guarantee the renewability of coverage unless an exception applies.

    The final rule “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Annual Eligibility Redeterminations for Exchange Participation and Insurance Affordability Programs; Health Insurance Issuer Standards Under the Affordable Care Act, Including Standards Related to Exchanges” (79 FR 52994), provides that an Exchange may choose to conduct the annual redetermination process for a plan year (1) in accordance with the existing procedures described in 45 CFR 155.335; (2) in accordance with procedures described in guidance issued by the Secretary for the coverage year; or (3) using an alternative proposed by the Exchange and approved by the Secretary. The guidance document “Guidance on Annual Redeterminations for Coverage for 2015” contains the procedures that the Secretary has specified, as noted in (2) above, until the issuance of further guidance. These procedures will be adopted by the Federally-facilitated Exchange. Under this option, the Exchange will provide three notices. These notices may be combined.

    The final rule also amends the requirements for product renewal and re-enrollment (or non-renewal) notices to be sent by Qualified Health Plan (QHP) issuers in the Exchanges and specifies content for these notices. The guidance document “Draft Updated Federal Standard Renewal and Product Discontinuation Notices” provides draft updated Federal standard notices for product discontinuation and renewal that would be sent by issuers of individual market QHPs and issuers in the individual market. Issuers in the small group market may use the draft Federal standard small group notices released in the June 26, 2014 bulletin “Draft Standard Notices When Discontinuing or Renewing a Product in the Small Group or Individual Market”, or any forms of the notice otherwise permitted by applicable laws and regulations. States that are enforcing the Affordable Care Act may develop their own standard notices, for product discontinuances, renewals, or both, provided the State-developed notices are at least as protective as the Federal standard notices. Form Number: CMS-10527 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1254); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, State Governments; Number of Respondents: 2,945; Number of Responses: 12,224; Total Annual Hours: 149,186. (For policy questions regarding this collection, contact Russell Tipps at 301-492-4371.)

    Dated: April 25, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09953 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA: 93.592] Announcing the Intent To Award a Single-Source Expansion Supplement Grant to the National Domestic Violence Hotline AGENCY:

    Family and Youth Services Bureau, ACYF, ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    This notice announces the intent to award a single-source expansion supplement grant under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) national domestic violence hotline grant program to the National Domestic Violence Hotline (Hotline) in Austin, TX.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of Family Violence and Prevention Services (DFVPS) announces its intent to award a cooperative agreement of up to $3,750,000 as a single-source expansion supplement to the National Domestic Violence Hotline (Hotline) in Austin, TX.

    DATES:

    The period of support for the single-source expansion supplement is September 30, 2016 through September 29, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angela Yannelli, Senior Program Specialist, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, 330 C Street SW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3621B, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-401-5524; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Hotline in Austin, TX, is funded under the Family Violence Protection and Services Act (FVPSA) program to operate the 24-hour, national, toll-free telephone hotline that provides information and assistance to adult and youth victims of family violence, domestic violence, or dating violence, and to the family and household members of such victims, and to persons affected by the victimization. The supplemental award will expand the capacity of the Hotline's current efforts by focusing on the development of a tribal hotline and by providing additional phone advocates to ensure that the Hotline can answer all contacts. The award will also assist in developing the “Love Is Respect” Web site (http://www.loveisrespect.org) into a complete resource for teens and youth seeking to prevent and end abusive relationships.

    Statutory Authority:

    The statutory authority for the award is section 313 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10413) as amended by section 201 of the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-320).

    Christopher Beach, Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Division of Grants Policy, Office of Administration, Administration for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09925 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-1842] Compliance Policy Guide on Crabmeat—Fresh and Frozen—Adulteration With Filth, Involving the Presence of Escherichia coli AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) relating to fresh and frozen crabmeat adulteration with filth involving the presence of Escherichia coli (E. coli). The CPG updates the previously issued CPG on this topic. The CPG provides guidance for FDA staff on the level of E. coli in crabmeat at which we may consider the crabmeat to be adulterated with filth.

    DATES:

    Submit electronic or written comments on FDA's CPGs at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2014-D-1842 for “Compliance Policy Guide on Crabmeat—Fresh and Frozen—Adulteration with Filth, Involving the Presence of Escherichia coli.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to Office of Policy and Risk Management, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Global Regulatory Operations and Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary E. Losikoff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFC-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2300.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of revised CPG Sec. 540.275 Crabmeat—Fresh and Frozen—Adulteration with Filth, Involving the Presence of Escherichia coli. The CPG updates the previously issued CPG Sec. 540.275 Crabmeat—Fresh and Frozen—Adulteration with Filth, Involving the Presence of Escherichia coli. We are issuing this CPG consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The CPG represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    The CPG provides guidance for FDA staff on the level of E. coli in fresh or frozen crabmeat (i.e., 3.6 Most Probable Number per gram (MPN/g) of E. coli) at which FDA may consider the crabmeat to be adulterated with filth under section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)). We revised the CPG for clarity and to update the format. Revisions generally include the addition of sections on Background and Policy, updates to the sections on Regulatory Action Guidance and Specimen Charges, and FDA office names. The CPG provides criteria that the FDA District Offices may use to determine whether to recommend an enforcement action. Consistent with our standard business process, the CPG provides guidance to the FDA field offices for submitting an enforcement action recommendation to FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) for case review. The CPG also provides direct reference authority to the FDA field offices in certain situations. Rather than submitting the recommendation to CFSAN, direct reference authority allows the FDA field offices to submit the recommendation directly to the appropriate office in FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs, thus streamlining the Agency's internal case review process. Specifically, in the section on Regulatory Action Guidance, we clarify that FDA's District Offices have direct reference authority for both domestic seizure and import refusal based on the criteria described in the CPG. We also clarify the specific types of legal action to which the criteria for recommendations apply. In addition, we provide specimen charges relating to domestic seizure and import refusal. The CPG also contains information that may be useful to the regulated industry and to the public.

    In the Federal Register of December 16, 2014 (79 FR 74729), we made available draft CPG Sec. 540.275 “Crabmeat—Fresh and Frozen—Adulteration with Filth, Involving the Presence of Escherichia coli.” We gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments on the draft CPG by February 17, 2015, for us to consider before beginning work on the final version of the CPG. We received no comments on the draft CPG. We are issuing the CPG with no changes other than for clarity and to update the format. The CPG announced in this notice finalizes the draft CPG dated December 2014.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the CPG at either http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the CPG.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Katherine Bent, Assistant Commissioner for Compliance Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09951 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0557] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Postmarket Surveillance AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on information collection requirements for postmarket surveillance of medical devices.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 27, 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-0557 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Postmarket Surveillance.” 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.

    Postmarket Surveillance—21 CFR Part 822—OMB Control Number 0910-0449—Extension

    Section 522 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360l) authorizes FDA to require a manufacturer to conduct postmarket surveillance (PS) of any device that meets the criteria set forth in the statute. The PS regulation establishes procedures that FDA uses to approve and disapprove PS plans. The regulation provides instructions to manufacturers so they know what information is required in a PS plan submission. FDA reviews PS plan submissions in accordance with part 822 (21 CFR part 822) in §§ 822.15 through 822.19 of the regulation, which describe the grounds for approving or disapproving a PS plan. In addition, the PS regulation provides instructions to manufacturers to submit interim and final reports in accordance with § 822.38. Respondents to this collection of information are those manufacturers who require postmarket surveillance of their products.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity/21 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Postmarket surveillance submission (§§ 822.9 and 822.10) 131 1 131 120 15,720 Changes to PS plan after approval (§ 822.21) 15 1 15 40 600 Changes to PS plan for a device that is no longer marketed (§ 822.28) 80 1 80 8 640 Waiver (§ 822.29) 1 1 1 40 40 Exemption request (§ 822.30) 16 1 16 40 640 Periodic reports (§ 822.38) 131 3 393 40 15,720 Total 33,360 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Explanation of Reporting Burden Estimate. The burden captured in table 1 of this document is based on the data from FDA's internal tracking system. Sections 822.26, 822.27, and 822.34 do not constitute information collection subject to review under the PRA because it entails no burden other than that necessary to identify the respondent, the date, the respondents address, and the nature of the instrument (See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1)).

    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 Activity/21 CFR section Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    Manufacturer records (§ 822.31) 131 1 131 20 2,620 Investigator records (§ 822.32) 393 1 393 5 1,965 Total 4,585 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Explanation of Recordkeeping Burden Estimate. FDA expects that at least some of the manufacturers will be able to satisfy the PS requirement using information or data they already have. For purposes of calculating burden, however, FDA has assumed that each PS order can only be satisfied by a 3-year clinically based surveillance plan, using three investigators. These estimates are based on FDA's knowledge and experience with postmarket surveillance.

    Dated: April 19, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09940 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service American Indians Into Nursing Program; Correction AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Indian Health Service published a document in the Federal Register on March 28, 2016, for the FY 2016 American Indians into Nursing. The notice contained incorrect project period lengths.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Naomi Aspaas, BSN, RN, Program Official, Office of Human Resource, Division of Health Professions Support, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR 11E53A, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone (301) 443-5710. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 28, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-06969, on page 17182, in the third column, under the heading “III. Eligibility Information, 1. Eligibility, (b) Priorities”, the correct paragraphs should read as follows:

    1. Priority I: At least two awards to public or private college or university, school of nursing which provides DNP, MSN, BSN, ADN (registered nurse, nurse practitioner, nurse midwife) degrees, not to exceed $400,000 per year up to a project period of three years.

    2. Priority II: At least three awards to a Tribally-controlled community college, school of nursing which provides BSN and ADN (registered nurse) degrees, not to exceed $400,000 per year up to a project period of three years.

    Dated: April 18, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09939 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, With Changes, of an Existing Information Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-Day Notice of information collection for review; form no. I-352SA/I-352RA; electronic bonds online (eBonds) access; OMB control no. 1653-0046.

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2016, Vol. 81 No. 4332 allowing for a 60 day comment period. No comments were received on this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, with changes, of a currently approved information collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Electronic Bonds Online (eBonds) Access.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I-352SA (Surety eBonds Access Application and Agreement); Form I-352RA (eBonds Rules of Behavior Agreement); U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individual or Households, Business or other non-profit. The information taken in this collection is necessary for ICE to grant access to eBonds and to notify the public of the duties and responsibilities associated with accessing eBonds. The I-352SA and the I-352RA are the two instruments used to collect the information associated with this collection. The I-352SA is to be completed by a Surety that currently holds a Certificate of Authority to act as a Surety on Federal bonds and details the requirements for accessing eBonds as well as the documentation, in addition to the I-352SA and I-352RA, which the Surety must submit prior to being granted access to eBonds. The I-352RA provides notification that eBonds is a Federal government computer system and as such users must abide by certain conduct guidelines to access eBonds and the consequences if such guidelines are not followed.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 100 responses at 30 minutes (.50 hours) per response.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 50 annual burden hours.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Scott Elmore, Program Manager, Forms Management Office, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09934 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5944-N-01] Notice of Extension of Time for Completion of Manufacturer Corrections Approved Under a Waiver of a Plan for Notification AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of extension of time.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice advises the public that HUD received a request from Champion Home Builders, Incorporated (Champion) for an extension of time to fully implement its plan to correct affected homes without implementation of a Plan of Notification. Certain manufactured homes built and sold by Champion contained certain fuel-burning Nortek furnace models with the in-line drain reversal, potentially causing the furnace to shut off because condensation will not drain. After reviewing Champion's request, HUD determined that Champion has shown good cause and granted its request for an extension. The requested extension is granted until May 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of Housing Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9166, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 8, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) authorizes HUD to establish the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (Construction and Safety Standards), codified in 24 CFR part 3280. Section 615 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5414) requires that manufacturers of manufactured homes notify purchasers if the manufacturer determines, in good faith, that a defect exists or is likely to exist in more than one home manufactured by the manufacturer and the defect relates to the Construction and Safety Standards or constitutes an imminent safety hazard to the purchaser of the manufactured home. The notification shall also inform purchasers whether the defect is one that the manufacturer will have corrected at no cost or is one that must be corrected at the expense of the purchaser/owner. The manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defect within a reasonable time after discovering the defect.

    HUD's procedural and enforcement provisions at 24 CFR part 3282, subpart I (Subpart I) implement these notification and correction requirements. If a manufacturer determines that it is responsible for providing notification under § 3282.405 and correction under § 3282.406, the manufacturer must prepare a plan for notifying purchasers of the homes containing the defect pursuant to §§ 3282.408 and 3282.409. Notification of purchasers must be accomplished by certified mail or other more expeditious means that provides a receipt. Notification must be provided to each retailer or distributor to whom any manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect was delivered, to the first purchaser of each manufactured home in the class of manufactured homes containing the defect, and to other persons who are a registered owners of a manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect. The manufacturer must complete the implementation of the plan for notification and correction on or before the deadline approved by the State Administrative Agency or HUD. Pursuant to § 3282.407(c), manufacturers may request a waiver of the notification requirements if, among other things, all affected homes have been identified and the manufacturer agrees to correct all affected homes within a specific time from the approval date.

    Under § 3282.410(c), the manufacturer may request an extension of a previously established deadline if it shows good cause for the extension and HUD decides that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest. If the request for extension is approved, § 3282.410(c) requires that HUD publish notice of the extension in the Federal Register.

    On December 25, 2015, Champion 1 notified HUD and requested a waiver of notification for certain manufactured homes that contained furnaces with circuit breaker wiring labels that if followed, would result in incorrect electrical circuit completion. Specifically, the homes were installed with certain Nortek furnaces, which were subsequently voluntarily identified by Nortek as being affected by its labeling problem. HUD approved Champion's waiver request on February 2, 2016. On April 8, 2016, Champion submitted a request for an extension regarding the completion of corrections required, originally to be completed within 60 days of HUD's waiver approval (by April 2, 2016). Pursuant to its waiver request, Champion stated that it was working with the furnace manufacturer (Nortek) to correct affected homes in the hands of consumers.

    1 Information about Champion Homes can be found at http://www.championhomes.com.

    Champion by letter dated April 8, 2016, requested an extension of 30 days to complete the correction process. This notice advises that HUD, on April 8, 2016, concluded that Champion has shown good cause and that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest, and granted the requested extension until May 2, 2016. This extension permits Champion to continue its good faith efforts to correct affected homes at no cost to affected homeowners.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09963 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5943-N-01] Notice of Extension of Time for Completion of Manufacturer Corrections Approved Under a Waiver of a Plan for Notification AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of extension of time.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice advises the public that HUD received a request from Champion Home Builders, Incorporated (Champion) for an extension of time to fully implement its plan to correct affected homes without implementation of a Plan of Notification. Certain manufactured homes built and sold by Champion contained certain Nortek furnace models with the potential for incorrect wiring of circuit breakers used for over-current protection of the furnace. After reviewing Champion's request, HUD determined that Champion has shown good cause and granted its request for an extension. The requested extension is granted until May 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of Housing Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9166, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 8, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) authorizes HUD to establish the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (Construction and Safety Standards), codified in 24 CFR part 3280. Section 615 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5414) requires that manufacturers of manufactured homes notify purchasers if the manufacturer determines, in good faith, that a defect exists or is likely to exist in more than one home manufactured by the manufacturer and the defect relates to the Construction and Safety Standards or constitutes an imminent safety hazard to the purchaser of the manufactured home. The notification shall also inform purchasers whether the defect is one that the manufacturer will have corrected at no cost or is one that must be corrected at the expense of the purchaser/owner. The manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defect within a reasonable time after discovering the defect.

    HUD's procedural and enforcement provisions at 24 CFR part 3282, subpart I (Subpart I) implement these notification and correction requirements. If a manufacturer determines that it is responsible for providing notification under § 3282.405 and correction under § 3282.406, the manufacturer must prepare a plan for notifying purchasers of the homes containing the defect pursuant to §§ 3282.408 and 3282.409. Notification of purchasers must be accomplished by certified mail or other more expeditious means that provides a receipt. Notification must be provided to each retailer or distributor to whom any manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect was delivered, to the first purchaser of each manufactured home in the class of manufactured homes containing the defect, and to other persons who are a registered owners of a manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect. The manufacturer must complete the implementation of the plan for notification and correction on or before the deadline approved by the State Administrative Agency or HUD. Pursuant to § 3282.407(c), manufacturers may request a waiver of the notification requirements if, among other things, all affected homes have been identified and the manufacturer agrees to correct all affected homes within a specific time from the approval date.

    Under § 3282.410(c), the manufacturer may request an extension of a previously established deadline if it shows good cause for the extension and HUD decides that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest. If the request for extension is approved, § 3282.410(c) requires that HUD publish notice of the extension in the Federal Register.

    On December 25, 2015, Champion 1 notified HUD and requested a waiver of notification for certain manufactured homes that contained furnaces with circuit breaker wiring labels that if followed, would result in incorrect electrical circuit completion. Specifically, the homes were installed with certain Nortek furnaces, which were subsequently voluntarily identified by Nortek as being affected by its labeling problem. HUD approved Champion's waiver request on January 4, 2016, and subsequently approved an additional 30 days on March 4, 2016. On April 8, 2016, Champion submitted a request for an additional extension regarding the completion of corrections required, originally to be completed within HUD's waiver approval deadline (by April 4, 2016). Pursuant to its waiver request, Champion stated that it was working with the furnace manufacturer (Nortek) to correct affected homes in the hands of consumers.

    1 Information about Champion Homes can be found at http://www.championhomes.com.

    Champion by letter dated April 8, 2016, requested an extension of 30 days to complete the correction process. This notice advises that HUD, on April 8, 2016, concluded that Champion has shown good cause and that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest, and granted the requested extension until May 4, 2016. This extension permits Champion to continue its good faith efforts to correct affected homes at no cost to affected homeowners.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09962 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5911-N-01] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection Comment Request Fair Housing Initiatives Program Grant Application and Monitoring Reports AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: 25 CFR 125, Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

    OMB Approval Number: 2529-0033.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD 904 A, B and C, SF-425, SF-424, SF-LLL, HUD-2880, HUD-2990, HUD-2993, HUD-424CB, HUD-424-CBW, HUD-2994-A, HUD-96010, and HUD-27061.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The collection is needed to allow the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) to request applicant information necessary to complete a grant application package during the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) grant application process. The collection is used to assist the Department in effectively evaluating grant application packages to select the highest ranked applications for funding to carry out fair housing enforcement and/or education and outreach activities under the following FHIP initiatives: Private Enforcement, Education and Outreach, and Fair Housing Organization. The collection is also needed for the collection of post-award report and other information used to monitor grants and grant funds. Information collected from quarterly and final progress reports and enforcement logs will enable the Department to evaluate the performance of agencies that receive funding and determine the impact of the program on preventing and eliminating discriminatory housing practices.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): 400.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Responses per annum Burden hour per response Annual burden hours Hourly cost per response Annual cost
    Application Development 400 1 400 76.50 30,600 00 00 Quarterly Report 104 4 416 19 7904 00 00 Supplemental Outcome Report 104 1 104 19 1976 00 00 Enforcement Log 59 4 236 7 1652 00 00 Final Report 104 1 104 20 2040 00 00 Recordkeeping 104 1 104 21 2184 00 00 Total 876 14 1366 187.50 46356 00 00
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Bryan Greene, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09961 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2016-N046; FVES59420300000F2 14X FF03E00000] MidAmerican Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan; Draft Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; notice of scoping meetings; and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), we are advising the public that we intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposed Endangered Species Act (ESA) incidental take permit (ITP) application from MidAmerican Energy Company (MEC) for the federally endangered Indiana bat, the federally threatened northern long-eared bat, the little brown bat, and the bald eagle. We are also announcing the initiation of a public scoping process to engage Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments; special interest groups; and the public in the identification of issues and concerns, potential impacts, and possible alternatives to the proposed action.

    MEC is currently operating (20) and constructing (2) wind energy facilities in the State of Iowa capable of generating more than 4,040 megawatts (MW) of wind generation capacity, and expects to construct additional wind energy projects over the next 30 years. MEC is preparing a habitat conservation plan (HCP) in support of its ITP application for both MEC's existing facilities and facilities presently under construction.

    Construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning, reclamation, and repowering of wind energy facilities, as well as activities associated with the management of mitigation land, have the potential to impact certain bat and bird species. Species to be covered in the MEC HCP include the federally listed endangered Indiana bat, the federally listed threatened northern long-eared bat, the unlisted little brown bat and the bald eagle, which is protected under the Eagle Act. As allowed under the Eagle Act, we anticipate extending Eagle Act take authorization for bald eagle through an ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit associated with the HCP, provided MEC is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and Eagle Act.

    DATES:

    Public scoping will begin with the publication of this NOI in the Federal Register and will continue through May 31, 2016. We will consider all comments on the scope of the EIS analysis that are received or postmarked by this date. Comments received or postmarked after this date will be considered to the extent practicable. We will conduct two public scoping meetings during the scoping period. The scoping meetings will provide the public with an opportunity to ask questions, discuss issues with Service and State staff regarding the EIS, and provide written comments.

    • May 17, 2016—Council Bluffs Public Library, 400 Willow Avenue Council Bluffs, Iowa, 5:30 to 7 p.m.

    • May 18, 2016—FFA Enrichment Center, 1055 SW Prairie Trail Parkway, Ankeny, Iowa, 5:30 to 7 p.m.

    In addition, we will host an online webinar on April 20, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. Central Time. Additional information on the proposed action, including how to participate in the webinar, is provided on the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/rockisland/te/index.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments via U.S. mail to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office, 1511 47th Avenue, Moline, Illinois 61265; by facsimile at 309-757-5807; or by electronic mail to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Schorg at 309-757-5800, extension 222 (telephone) or [email protected] (email). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    Pursuant to the NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., we advise the public that we intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate impacts associated with several alternatives related to the potential issuance of ITPs to MEC (Service's proposed action). ITPs would be expected to cover the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). We are also announcing the initiation of a public scoping process to engage Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments, special interest groups, and the public in the identification of issues and concerns, potential impacts, and possible alternatives to our proposed action.

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered under section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1538, and 1533, respectively). The ESA implementing regulations extend, under certain circumstances, the prohibition of take to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). Under section 3 of the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm” is defined by regulation as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

    Under section 10 of the ESA, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of federally listed fish and wildlife species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as “take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity”. To obtain an ITP, an applicant must submit an HCP that specifies (1) the impact that will likely result from the taking; (2) what steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize and mitigate the impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement such steps; (3) what alternative actions to the taking the applicant considered and the reasons why the alternatives are not being utilized; and (4) how the applicant will carry out any other measures that we may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the HCP. 50 CFR 17.22(b)(1)(iii); 50 CFR 17.32(b)(1)(iii)(C). If we find, after opportunity for public comment, with respect to the permit application and the related HCP that (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the HCP will be provided, as well as procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the measures, if any, required by us will be carried out; and we have received assurances that the plan will be implemented, then we will issue MEC the requested permit(s). 50 CFR 17.22, 17.32(b)(2)(i).

    Eagles are protected under the Eagle Act, which prohibits take and disturbance of individuals and nests. “Take” under the Eagle Act includes any actions that pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, and disturb eagles. 16 U.S.C. 668c. “Disturb” is further defined in 50 CFR 22.3 as to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. Our regulations at 50 CFR 22.11 allow Eagle Act take authorization to be extended to permittees authorized to take eagles by an ITP issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. Take coverage for bald eagles provided through an ITP applies for the duration of the permit, or until the amount or level of take authorized has been met, provided the permittee complies with all terms and conditions provided in the ITP.

    Proposed MEC HCP

    The purpose of the HCP process and subsequent issuance of an ITP is to authorize the incidental take of threatened or endangered species and eagles, not to authorize the underlying activities that result in take. This process ensures that the effects of the authorized incidental take will be adequately minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

    The MEC HCP will encompass land within the State of Iowa where MEC facilities currently exist, are presently under construction, and where MEC may develop future facilities. MEC currently has approximately 4,050 megawatts (MW) of wind generation capacity installed or under construction and anticipates developing additional wind generation capacity over the requested 30-year term of their ITPs. Activities to be covered by the proposed HCP include those necessary to construct, operate, maintain and repair, decommission and reclaim, and repower utility-scale, multi-turbine wind energy projects within the State of Iowa. Covered activities also include development and management of mitigation lands and monitoring.

    The MEC HCP would potentially cover four species that are subject to injury or mortality at wind generation facilities, including two federally listed species and two unlisted species. The two federally listed species are the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat. The two unlisted species are the little brown bat and the bald eagle. Species may also be added or deleted as the MEC HCP is developed, based on further analysis, new information, agency consultation, and public involvement.

    Environmental Impact Statement

    NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly affect the human environment. Based on 40 CFR 1508.27 and 40 CFR 1508.2, we have determined that implementation of the proposed MEC HCP may have significant impacts on the human environment. Therefore, before deciding whether to issue ITPs to MEC, we will prepare an EIS to analyze the environmental impacts associated with those actions. The EIS will also include an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives considered in the EIS may include, but are not limited to, variations in the permit term or permit structure; the level of take allowed; the level, location, or type of conservation, monitoring, or mitigation provided in the MEC HCP; the scope of covered activities; the list of covered species; or a combination of these factors. Additionally, a no action alternative will be included.

    The EIS is intended to analyze and disclose potential environmental impacts that could result from the issuance of ITPs to MEC for its existing and future facilities in the State of Iowa, including subsequent implementation of its proposed HCP. For permitting decisions on existing facilities (20) and facilities presently under construction (2), the EIS will address potential environmental impacts at specific temporal and spatial scales. For permitting decisions on future facilities with uncertain temporal and/or spatial scales, the EIS will evaluate environmental impacts programmatically, and include a process for assessing the need for subsequent NEPA review on future permitting decisions. If we find that our initial NEPA review has sufficiently analyzed potential environmental impacts, we will rely upon the analysis provided in our initial NEPA review. On the other hand, if there is significant new information of relevance to the proposed action or its impacts, we may choose to supplement our NEPA review by developing separate, stand-alone environmental documents that make use of tiering and incorporation by reference.

    Request for Information

    We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We will consider these comments in developing the draft EIS. We also seek specific comments on:

    1. Biological information and relevant data concerning covered species;

    2. Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of covered species;

    3. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that implementation of the proposed covered activities could have on endangered, threatened, and other covered species, and their communities or habitats;

    4. Other possible alternatives to the proposed action that the Service should consider;

    5. Other current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible cumulative impacts on covered species;

    6. The presence of archaeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act;

    7. Issues, questions, or concerns with developing an EIS which may be supplemented in the future to support additional ITP applications from MEC; and

    8. Identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed MEC HCP and permit action.

    Public Availability of Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed above in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might 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.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the EIS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Services' Rock Island Field Office in Moline, Illinois. (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Scoping Meetings

    See DATES for the date/s and time/s of our public scoping meetings. The primary purpose of these meetings and public comment period is to provide the public with a general understanding of the background of the proposed action and to solicit suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives we should consider when drafting the EIS. Written comments will be accepted at the meetings. Comments can also be submitted by methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Once the draft EIS and proposed MEC HCP are complete and made available for review, there will be additional opportunity for public comment on the content of those documents.

    Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public meetings should contact the Service using one of the methods listed above in ADDRESSES no later than one week before the public meeting. Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative formats, upon request.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), section 668a of the Eagle Act (16 U.S.C. 668a-668d), NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.5, 1506.6 and 1508.22).

    Dated: April 11, 2016. Lynn Lewis, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09945 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-LE-2016-N078; FF09L00200-FX-LE18110900000] Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail), or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0012” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at [email protected] (email) or 703-358-2482 (telephone). You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Collection Request

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0012.

    Title: Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife, 50 CFR 14.61-14.64 and 14.94.

    Service Form Numbers: 3-177 and 3-177a.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Businesses or individuals that import or export fish, wildlife, or wildlife products; scientific institutions that import or export fish or wildlife scientific specimens; and government agencies that import or export fish or wildlife specimens for various purposes.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • responses
  • Completion
  • time per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Total annual burden hours
    3-177 hard copy submission 16,207 15 4,052 3-177 electronic submission 172,446 10 28,741 Fee waiver certification 190,874 1 3,181 Totals 379,527 35,974

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    Abstract: The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) makes it unlawful to import or export fish, wildlife, or plants without filing a declaration or report deemed necessary for enforcing the Act or upholding the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (see 16 U.S.C. 1538(e)). With a few exceptions, businesses, individuals, or government agencies importing into or exporting from the United States any fish, wildlife, or wildlife product must complete and submit to the Service an FWS Form 3-177 (Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife). This form as well as FWS Form 3-177a (Continuation Sheet) and instructions for completion are available for electronic submission at https://edecs.fws.gov. These forms are also available in fillable format at http://www.fws.gov/forms/.

    The information that we collect is unique to each wildlife shipment and enables us to:

    • Accurately inspect the contents of the shipment;

    • Enforce any regulations that pertain to the fish, wildlife, or wildlife products contained in the shipment; and

    • Maintain records of the importation and exportation of these commodities.

    Businesses or individuals must file FWS Forms 3-177 and 3-177a with us at the time and port where they request clearance of the import or export of wildlife or wildlife products. Our regulations allow for certain species of wildlife to be imported or exported between the United States and Canada or Mexico at U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports, even though our wildlife inspectors may not be present.

    In these instances, importers and exporters may file the forms with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. We collect the following information:

    (1) Name of the importer or exporter and broker.

    (2) Scientific and common name of the fish or wildlife.

    (3) Permit numbers (if permits are required).

    (4) Description, quantity, and value of the fish or wildlife.

    (5) Natural country of origin of the fish or wildlife.

    In addition, certain information, such as the airway bill or bill of lading number, the location of the shipment containing the fish or wildlife for inspection, and the number of cartons containing fish or wildlife, assists our wildlife inspectors if a physical examination of the shipment is necessary.

    In 2009, we implemented a new user fee system intended to recover the costs of the compliance portion of the wildlife inspection program. Since that time, we have been made aware that we may have placed an undue economic burden on businesses that exclusively trade in small volumes of low-value, non-federally protected wildlife parts and products. To address this issue, we implemented a program that exempts certain businesses from the designated port base inspection fees as an interim measure while we reassess the current user fee system. Businesses that possess a valid Service import/export license may request to participate in the fee exemption program through our electronic filing system (eDecs). Qualified licensees must create an eDecs filer account as an importer or exporter, if they do not already have one, and file their required documents electronically. To be an approved participating business in the program and receive an exemption from the designated port base inspection fee, the licensed business must certify that it will exclusively import or export nonliving wildlife that is not listed as injurious under 50 CFR part 16 and does not require a permit or certificate under 50 CFR parts 15 (Wild Bird Conservation Act), 17 (Endangered Species Act), 18 (Marine Mammal Protection Act), 20 and 21 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act), 22 (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act), or 23 (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). The requesting business also must certify that it will exclusively import or export the above types of wildlife shipments where the quantity in each shipment of wildlife parts or products is 25 or fewer and the total value of each wildlife shipment is $5,000 or less. Any licensed business that has more than two wildlife shipments that were refused clearance in the 5 years prior to its request is not eligible for the program. In addition, any licensees that have been assessed a civil penalty, issued a Notice of Violation, or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony violation involving wildlife import or export will not be eligible to participate in the program.

    Comments Received and Our Responses

    Comments: On December 28, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 80792) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on February 26, 2016. We did not receive any comments.

    Request for Public Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB and us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09952 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNV952000 L14400000.BJ0000.LXSSF2210000.241A; 13-08807; MO #4500092462; TAS: 14X1109] Filing of Plats of Survey; NV AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: Unless otherwise stated filing is effective at 10:00 a.m. on the dates indicated below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael O. Harmening, Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502-7147, phone: 775-861-6490. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on March 4, 2016:

    The plat, in 1 sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary of Township 43 North, Range 24 East; and the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, Township 42 North, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, under Group No. 938, was accepted February 28, 2016. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.

    2. The Supplemental Plat of the following described lands was officially filed at the BLM Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on March 9, 2016:

    The supplemental plat, in 1 sheet, showing the amended lottings in section 19, Township 22 North, Range 35 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 961, was accepted March 7, 2016. This supplemental plat was prepared to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.

    The survey and supplemental plat listed above are now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. These records have been placed in the open files in the BLM Nevada State Office and are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the surveys and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Michael O. Harmening, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Nevada.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09933 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLWY-957000-16-L13100000-PP0000] Filing of Plats of Survey, Nebraska AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file the plats of survey of the lands described below thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management and are necessary for the management of these lands. The lands referenced are:

    The plat and field notes representing the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the First Guide Meridian East, through T. 24 N., between Rs. 8 and 9 E., the dependent resurvey of portions of the south boundary of the Omaha Indian Reservation, the subdivisional lines and subdivision of section lines, and the survey of the subdivision of certain sections, Township 24 North, Range 8 East, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 179, was accepted April 19, 2016.

    The plat representing the entire record of the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivision of section 19, Township 24 North, Range 9 East, Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 182, was accepted April 19, 2016.

    Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. John P. Lee, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Support Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09957 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue [Docket No. ONRR-2011-0012; DS63610000 DR2PS0000.CH7000 167D0102R2] Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index Zone AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Final regulations for valuing gas produced from Indian leases, published August 10, 1999, require ONRR to determine major portion prices and notify industry by publishing the prices in the Federal Register. The regulations also require ONRR to publish a due date for industry to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices. Consistent with these requirements, this notice provides major portion prices for the 12 months of calendar year 2014.

    DATES:

    The due date to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices is June 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Curry, Manager, Denver B, Western Audit & Compliance, ONRR; telephone (303) 231-3741; fax number (303) 231-3473; email [email protected]; or Rob Francoeur, Denver B, Team 2, Western Audit & Compliance, ONRR; telephone (303) 231-3723; fax (303) 231-3473; email [email protected] Mailing address: Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Western Audit & Compliance, Denver B, P.O. Box 25165, MS 62520B, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 10, 1999, ONRR published a final rule titled “Amendments to Gas Valuation Regulations for Indian Leases” effective January 1, 2000 (64 FR 43506). The gas valuation regulations apply to all gas production from Indian (Tribal or allotted) oil and gas leases, except leases on the Osage Indian Reservation.

    The regulations require ONRR to publish major portion prices for each designated area not associated with an index zone for each production month beginning January 2000, as well as the due date for additional royalty payments. See 30 CFR 1206.174(a)(4)(ii). If you owe additional royalties based on a published major portion price, you must submit to ONRR by the due date, an amended form ONRR-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance. If you do not pay the additional royalties by the due date, ONRR will bill you late payment interest under 30 CFR 1218.54. The interest will accrue from the due date until ONRR receives your payment and an amended form ONRR-2014. The table below lists the major portion prices for all designated areas not associated with an index zone. The due date is the end of the month following 60 days after the publication date of this notice.

    Gas Major Portion Prices ($/MMBtu) for Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index Zone ONRR-designated areas Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 Blackfeet Reservation 3.42 6.58 4.24 3.82 Fort Belknap 5.61 6.76 6.24 5.00 Fort Berthold 6.40 10.27 10.48 5.19 Fort Peck Reservation 6.55 7.28 7.87 6.64 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 4.68 5.59 5.39 4.58 Turtle Mountain Reservation 7.05 7.31 8.64 5.14

    ONRR-designated areas May 2013 Jun 2013 Jul 2013 Aug 2013 Blackfeet Reservation 3.69 3.82 3.30 3.14 Fort Belknap 5.11 5.12 4.85 4.69 Fort Berthold 5.04 5.01 4.66 4.20 Fort Peck Reservation 5.17 5.00 4.79 4.49 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 4.66 4.52 4.52 3.98 Turtle Mountain Reservation 5.05 4.97 4.24 4.14

    ONRR-designated areas Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2013 Blackfeet Reservation 3.13 2.81 2.99 2.34 Fort Belknap 4.77 4.75 4.89 5.10 Fort Berthold 4.24 4.09 4.37 4.83 Fort Peck Reservation 4.70 4.31 3.52 3.10 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 4.14 3.96 3.80 4.24 Turtle Mountain Reservation 4.49 4.06 4.00 3.63

    For information on how to report additional royalties due to major portion prices, please refer to our Dear Payor letter dated December 1, 1999, on the ONRR Web site at http://www.onrr.gov/ReportPay/PDFDocs/991201.pdf.

    Dated: April 6, 2016. Gregory J. Gould, Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09905 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue [Docket No. ONRR-2016-0001; DS63610000 DR2000000.CH7000 167D0102R2] Temporary Physical Address Change for General Ledger Team AGENCY:

    Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    ONRR is temporarily changing its physical address for courier services and personal deliveries.

    DATES:

    Effective April 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Darrel Redford, Supervisory Accountant, at (303) 231-3085, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Effective April 13, 2016, all courier services and personal deliveries should be made to ONRR at the Denver Federal Center, Building 53, entrance E-20. Visitor parking is available near entrance E-20, with a phone to request entry. Call Armando Salazar at (303) 231-3585 or Janet Giron at (303) 231-3088 to gain entrance.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. Gregory J. Gould, Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09906 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. Leucadia National Corporation; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States of America v. Leucadia National Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01547-RDM. On September 22, 2015, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that Leucadia National Corporation (“Leucadia”) violated the premerger notification and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. 18a, with respect to its acquisition of voting securities of KCG Holdings, Inc. The proposed Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires Leucadia to pay a civil penalty of $240,000.

    Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations.

    Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's Web site, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to Daniel P. Ducore, Special Attorney, c/o Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., CC-8416, Washington, DC 20580 (telephone: 202-326-2526; email: [email protected]).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff, v. LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION, 520 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Defendant.

    CASE NO.: 1:15-cv-01547 JUDGE: Randolph D. Moss FILED: 09/22/2015
    COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PREMERGER REPORTING AND WAITING REQUIREMENTS OF THE HART-SCOTT RODINO ACT

    The United States of America, Plaintiff, by its attorneys, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States and at the request of the Federal Trade Commission, brings this civil antitrust action to obtain monetary relief in the form of civil penalties against Defendant Leucadia National Corporation (“Leucadia”). Plaintiff alleges as follows:

    NATURE OF THE ACTION

    1. Leucadia violated the notice and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. 18a (“HSR Act” or “Act”), with respect to the acquisition of voting securities of KCG Holdings, Inc. (“KCG”) in July 2013.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to

    Section 7A(g) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1355 and over the Defendant by virtue of Defendant's consent, in the Stipulation relating hereto, to the maintenance of this action and entry of the Final Judgment in this District.

    3. Venue is properly based in this District by virtue of Defendant's consent, in the Stipulation relating hereto, to the maintenance of this action and entry of the Final Judgment in this District.

    THE DEFENDANT

    4. Defendant Leucadia is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal office and place of business at 520 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022. Leucadia is engaged in commerce, or in activities affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12, and Section 7A(a)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(1). At all times relevant to this complaint, Leucadia had sales or assets in excess of $141.8 million. Leucadia is the ultimate parent entity of Jeffries, LLC (“Jeffries”).

    OTHER ENTITIES

    5. KCG is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 545 Washington Boulevard, Jersey City, NJ 07310. KCG is engaged in commerce, or in activities affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12, and Section 7A(a)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(1). At all times relevant to this complaint, KCG had sale or assets in excess of $14.2 million.

    6. Goober Drilling LLC (“Goober”) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Oklahoma with its principal place of business at 4905 S. Perkins Road, Stillwater, OK 74074. Goober is engaged in commerce, or in activities affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12, and Section 7A(a)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(1). At all times relevant to this complaint, Goober had sales or assets in excess of $12 million.

    THE HART-SCOTT-RODINO ACT AND RULES

    7. The HSR Act requires certain acquiring persons and certain persons whose voting securities or assets are acquired to file notifications with the federal antitrust agencies and to observe a waiting period before consummating certain acquisitions of voting securities or assets. 15 U.S.C. 18a(a) and (b). These notification and waiting period requirements apply to acquisitions that meet the HSR Act's thresholds, which are adjusted annually. During most of 2013, the HSR Act's reporting and waiting period requirements applied to most transactions that would result in the acquiring person holding more than $70.9 million, and all transactions (regardless of the size of the acquiring or acquired persons) where the acquiring person would hold more than $283.6 million of the acquired person's voting securities and/or assets, except for certain exempted transactions.

    8. The HSR Act's notification and waiting period are intended to give the federal antitrust agencies prior notice of, and information about, proposed transactions. The waiting period is also intended to provide the federal antitrust agencies with an opportunity to investigate a proposed transaction and to determine whether to seek an injunction to prevent the consummation of a transaction that may violate the antitrust laws.

    9. Pursuant to Section (d)(2) of the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(d)(2), rules were promulgated to carry out the purposes of the HSR Act. 16 CFR 801-803 (“HSR Rules”).

    The HSR Rules, among other things, define terms contained in the HSR Act.

    10. Pursuant to section 801.13(a)(1) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.13(a)(1), “all voting securities of [an] issuer which will be held by the acquiring person after the consummation of an acquisition”—including any held before the acquisition—are deemed held “as a result of” the acquisition at issue.

    11. Pursuant to sections 801.13(a)(2) and 801.10(c)(1) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.13(a)(2) and. § 801.10(c)(1), the value of publicly traded voting securities already held is the market price, defined to be the lowest closing price within 45 days prior to the subsequent acquisition.

    12. Section 802.9 of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 802.9, provides that acquisitions solely for the purpose of investment are exempt from the notification and waiting period requirement if the acquirer will hold ten percent or less of the issuer's voting securities.

    13. Section 802.64 of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 802.64, provides generally that certain defined institutional investors, including broker-dealers, may acquire up to 15% of the voting securities of an issuer without filing under the HSR Act and observing the waiting period, if the voting securities are acquired solely for the purpose of investment. Section (c)(1) of Rule 802.64 provides, however, that “no acquisition of voting securities of an institutional investor of the same type as any entity included within the acquiring person shall be exempt under this section.”

    14. Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1), provides that any person, or any officer, director, or partner thereof, who fails to comply with any provision of the HSR Act is liable to the United States for a civil penalty for each day during which such person is in violation. For violations occurring on or after February 10, 2009, the maximum amount of civil penalty is $16,000 per day, pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, § 31001(s) (amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), and Federal Trade Commission Rule 1.98, 16 CFR 1.98, 74 FR 857 (Jan. 9, 2009).

    DEFENDANT'S PRIOR VIOLATION OF THE HSR ACT

    15. On August 15, 2007, Leucadia acquired 8% of the non-corporate interests in Goober. At the time of the acquisition, Leucadia already held 42% of the non-corporate interests of Goober. As a result of the August 15 transaction, Leucadia acquired control of Goober as defined in the HSR Rules. The value of the membership interests held by Leucadia after the acquisition was approximately $125 million.

    16. Although it was required to do so, Leucadia did not file under the HSR Act prior to acquiring Goober membership interests on August 15, 2007.

    17. On October 24, 2008, Leucadia made a corrective filing under the HSR Act for the August 15, 2007, acquisition of Goober non-corporate interests. In a letter accompanying the corrective filing, Leucadia acknowledged that the transaction was reportable under the HSR Act, but asserted that the failure to file and observe the waiting period was inadvertent.

    18. On January 7, 2009, the Premerger Notification Office of the Federal Trade Commission sent a letter to Leucadia indicating that it would not recommend a civil penalty action regarding the August 15, 2007 Goober acquisition, but stating that Leucadia “still must bear responsibility for compliance with the Act. In addition, it is accountable for instituting an effective program to ensure full compliance with the Act's requirements.”

    VIOLATION

    19. On July 1, 2013, Leucadia, through Jeffries, acquired 16,467,774 shares of KCG voting securities. The KCG voting securities held as a result of the acquisition by Leucadia represented approximately 13.5% of KCG's outstanding voting securities and were valued at approximately $173 million.

    20. Prior to acquiring the KCG voting securities, Leucadia sought advice from experienced HSR counsel as to whether the transaction was subject to the HSR reporting requirements. Counsel concluded that the transaction was exempt under Section 802.64 of the HSR Rules because Jeffries was a broker-dealer within the meaning of the HSR Rules, Jeffries was acquiring the voting securities solely for the purpose of investment, and KCG was not a broker-dealer within the meaning of the HSR Rules.

    21. KCG was a broker-dealer within the meaning of the HSR Rules and the exemption under Section 802.64 therefore did not apply. Leucadia was required to observe the notification and waiting period requirements of HSR prior to Jeffries acquiring the KCG voting securities.

    24. On September 19, 2014, Leucadia made a corrective filing under the HSR Act for the KCG voting securities it had acquired on July 1, 2013. In a letter accompanying the corrective filing, Leucadia acknowledged that the acquisition was reportable under the HSR Act. The HSR waiting period expired on October 20, 2014.

    25. Leucadia was in continuous violation of the HSR Act from July 1, 2013, when it acquired the KCG voting securities that resulted in it holding more than ten percent of the outstanding KCG voting securities valued in excess of the HSR Act's $70.9 million size-of-transaction threshold, through October 20, 2014, when the waiting period expired.

    REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests:

    1. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendant Leucadia's acquisition of KCG voting securities on July 1, 2013, was a violation of the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a; and that Defendant Leucadia was in violation of the HSR Act each day from July 1, 2013, through October 20, 2014.

    2. That the Court order Defendant Leucadia to pay to the United States an appropriate civil penalty as provided by the HSR Act. 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1), the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, § 31001(s) (amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), and Federal Trade Commission Rule 1.98, 16 CFR 1.98, 74 FR 857 (Jan. 9, 2009).

    3. That the Court order such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

    4. That the Court award the Plaintiff its costs of this suit.

    Dated: September 22, 2015

    FOR THE PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

    /s/ William J. Baer DC Bar No. 324723 Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Antitrust Division Washington, DC 20530 /s/ Daniel P. Ducore DC Bar No. 933721 Special Attorney /s/ Roberta S. Baruch DC Bar No. 269266 Special Attorney /s/ Kenneth A. Libby Special Attorney /s/ Jennifer Lee Special Attorney Federal Trade Commission Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-2694
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant.

    CASE NO.: 1:15-cv-01547 JUDGE: Randolph D. Moss FILED: 04/20/2016
    COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT

    The United States, pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement to set forth the information necessary to enable the Court and the public to evaluate the proposed Final Judgment that would terminate this civil antitrust proceeding.

    I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING

    On September 22, 2015, the United States filed a Complaint against Defendant Leucadia National Corporation (“Leucadia”), related to Leucadia's acquisition of voting securities of KCG Holdings, Inc. (“KCG”) in 2013. The Complaint alleges that Leucadia violated Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, commonly known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the “HSR Act”). The HSR Act states that “no person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, any voting securities of any person” exceeding certain thresholds until that person has filed pre-acquisition notification and report forms with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (collectively, the “federal antitrust agencies” or “agencies”) and the post-filing waiting period has expired.1 The purpose of the notification and waiting period is to allow the agencies an opportunity to conduct an antitrust review of proposed transactions before they are consummated.

    1 15 U.S.C. 18a(a).

    The Complaint alleges that Leucadia, via an entity it controls, acquired voting securities of KCG in excess of the statutory threshold ($70.9 million at the time of acquisition) without making the required pre-acquisition filings with the agencies and without observing the waiting period, and that Leucadia and KCG each met the statutory size of person threshold at the time of the acquisition (Leucadaia and KCG had sales or assets in excess of $141.8 million and $14.2 million, respectively).

    The Complaint further alleges that Leucadia previously violated the HSR Act's notification requirements when it acquired shares in Goober Drilling LLC (“Goober”) in 2007. On August 15, 2007, Leucadia acquired 8% of the non-corporate interests in Goober which, when combined with its then existing interest in Goober, gave Leucadia control of Goober as defined in the HSR Rules. Although it was required to do so, Leucadia did not file under the HSR Act prior to acquiring Goober membership interests on August 15th. On October 24, 2008, Leucadia made a corrective filing under the HSR Act for the August 15, 2007, acquisition of Goober non-corporate interests. In a letter accompanying the corrective filing, Leucadia acknowledged that the transaction was reportable under the HSR Act, but asserted that the failure to file and observe the waiting period was inadvertent. On January 7, 2009, the Premerger Notification Office of the Federal Trade Commission sent a letter to Leucadia indicating that it would not recommend a civil penalty action regarding the 2007 Goober acquisition, but stated that Leucadia would be “accountable for instituting an effective program to ensure full compliance with the [HSR] Act's requirements.” 2

    2 Complaint, ¶ 18.

    At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment that eliminates the need for a trial in this case. The proposed Final Judgment is designed to deter Leucadia's HSR Act violations. Under the proposed Final Judgment, Leucadia must pay a civil penalty in the amount of $240,000.

    The United States and the Defendant have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA, unless the United States first withdraws its consent. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this case, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and punish violations thereof. Entry of this judgment would not constitute evidence against, or an admission by, any party with respect to any issue of fact or law involved in the case and is conditioned upon the Court's finding that entry is in the public interest.

    II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS A. Leucadia and the Acquisitions of KCG Voting Securities

    Leucadia is a holding company with a market capitalization of approximately $8 billion. Through its subsidiaries, it engages in mining and drilling services, telecommunications, healthcare services, manufacturing, banking and lending, real estate, and winery businesses. Currently, Leucadia's largest holding is Jeffries Group, a global investment bank that provides clients with capital markets and financial advisory services, including institutional brokerage.

    KCG is a global financial services firm engaging in market making, high-frequency trading, electronic execution, and institutional sales and trade.

    On July 1, 2013, Leucadia, through Jeffries, acquired 16,467,774 shares of KCG voting securities. Leucadia's voting securities represented approximately 13.5% of KCG's outstanding voting securities and were valued at approximately $173 million. This exceeded the HSR Act's $70.9 million size-of-transaction threshold then in effect.

    Prior to acquiring the Leucadia voting securities, Leucadia sought advice from experienced HSR counsel as to whether the transaction was subject to the HSR reporting requirements. Counsel concluded that the transaction was exempt under Section 802.64 of the HSR Rules because Jeffries was a broker-dealer within the meaning of the HSR Rules, Jeffries was acquiring the voting securities solely for the purpose of investment, and KCG was not a broker-dealer within the meaning of the HSR Rules. KCG was, however, a broker-dealer within the meaning of the HSR Rules and the exemption under Section 802.64 therefore did not apply. Leucadia was required to observe the notification and waiting period requirements of HSR prior to Jeffries acquiring the KCG voting securities. After discovering the missed filing, Leucadia promptly made a corrective filing on September 19, 2014. The waiting period expired on October 20, 2014.

    B. Leucadia's Violation of HSR

    As alleged in the Complaint, Leucadia acquired in excess of the $70.9 million in voting securities of KCG without complying with the pre-acquisition notification and waiting period requirements of the HSR Act. Leucadia's failure to comply undermined the statutory scheme and the purpose of the HSR Act. Leucadia's September 19, 2014, corrective filing included a letter acknowledging that the acquisitions were reportable under the HSR Act.

    III. EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The proposed Final Judgment imposes a $240,000 civil penalty designed to deter this Defendant and others from violating the HSR Act. The United States adjusted the penalty downward from the maximum because the violation was unintentional, the Defendant promptly self-reported the violation after discovery, and the Defendant is willing to resolve the matter by consent decree and avoid prolonged investigation and litigation. The penalty also reflects Defendant's previous violation of the HSR Act, as well as Defendant's good faith efforts to comply with HSR by seeking advice from counsel prior to the acquisition. The United States expects this penalty to deter Leucadia and others from violating the HSR Act. The relief will have a beneficial effect on competition because the agencies will be properly notified of acquisitions, in accordance with the law. At the same time, the penalty will not have any adverse effect on competition.

    IV. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVATE LITIGANTS

    There is no private antitrust action for HSR Act violations; therefore, entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust action.

    V. PROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The United States and Defendant have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by this Court after compliance with the provision of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry of the decree upon this Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.

    The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register, or the last date of publication in a newspaper of the summary of this Competitive Impact Statement, whichever is later. All comments received during this period will be considered by the United States, which remains free to withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior to entry. The comments and the response of the United States will be filed with the Court. In addition, comments will be posted on the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's internet Web site and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Written comments should be submitted to: Daniel P. Ducore, Special Attorney, United States, c/o Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., CC-8416, Washington, DC 20580, Email: [email protected]

    The proposed Final Judgment provides that this Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to this Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.

    VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    As an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, the United States considered pursuing a full trial on the merits against the Defendant. The United States is satisfied, however, that the proposed relief is an appropriate remedy in this matter. Given the facts of this case, including the Defendant's self-reporting of the violation and willingness to settle quickly, the United States is satisfied that the proposed civil penalty is sufficient to address the violation alleged in the Complaint and to deter violations by similarly situated entities in the future, without the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits.

    VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE APPA FOR THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The APPA requires that remedies contained in proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty (60) day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment is “in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:

    (A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and

    (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.

    15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In considering these statutory factors, the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one, as the government is entitled to “broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing public interest standard under the Tunney Act); United States v, U.S. Airways Group, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 75 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting the court has broad discretion of the adequacy of the relief at issue); United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 08-1965 (JR), 2009-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 76,736, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3, (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2009) (noting that the court's review of a consent judgment is limited and only inquires “into whether the government's determination that the proposed remedies will cure the antitrust violations alleged in the complaint was reasonable, and whether the mechanism to enforce the final judgment are clear and manageable.”).3

    3 The 2004 amendments substituted “shall” for “may” in directing relevant factors for court to consider and amended the list of factors to focus on competitive considerations and to address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 U.S.C. § 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1) (2006); see also SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments “effected minimal changes” to Tunney Act review).

    As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not “engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public.” United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460-62; United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F. Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. Courts have held that:

    [t]he balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General. The court's role in protecting the public interest is one of insuring that the government has not breached its duty to the public in consenting to the decree. The court is required to determine not whether a particular decree is the one that will best serve society, but whether the settlement is “within the reaches of the public interest.” More elaborate requirements might undermine the effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by consent decree.

    Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).4 In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, a district court “must accord deference to the government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies, and may not require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that a court should not reject the proposed remedies because it believes others are preferable); Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be “deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies”); United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United States' prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case).

    4Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court's “ultimate authority under the [APPA] is limited to approving or disapproving the consent decree”); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, the court is constrained to “look at the overall picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope, but with an artist's reducing glass”). See generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether “the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the `reaches of the public interest'”).

    Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the reaches of public interest.'” United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (noting that room must be made for the government to grant concessions in the negotiation process for settlements (citing Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461)); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States “need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17.

    Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court must simply determine whether there is a factual foundation for the government's decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (“the `public interest' is not to be measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint against those the court believes could have, or even should have, been alleged”). Because the “court's authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,” it follows that “the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,” and not to “effectively redraft the complaint” to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459-60. As this Court recently confirmed in SBC Communications, courts “cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination unless the complaint is drafted so narrowly as to make a mockery of judicial power.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15.

    In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2); see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (indicating that a court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or to permit intervenors as part of its review under the Tunney Act). The language wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney explained: “[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.” 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court's “scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.5 A court can make its public interest determination based on the competitive impact statement and response to public comments alone. U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76.

    5See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the “Tunney Act expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone”); United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., No. 73-CV-681-W-1, 1977-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (“Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should . . . carefully consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances.”); S. Rep. No. 93-298, at 6 (1973) (“Where the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.”).

    VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS

    There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.

    Date: April 20, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, __/s/ Kenneth A. Libby Kenneth A. Libby Special Attorney IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, Plaintiff, v. LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION, 520 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Defendant.

    CASE NO.: 1:15-cv-01547 JUDGE: Randolph D. Moss FILED: 09/22/2015
    FINAL JUDGMENT

    Plaintiff, the United States of America, having commenced this action by filing its Complaint herein for violation of Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, commonly known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, and Plaintiff and Defendant Leucadia National Corporation, by their respective attorneys, having consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or an admission by the Defendant with respect to any such issue:

    Now, therefore, before the taking of any testimony and without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and upon the consent of the parties hereto, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:

    I.

    The Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Defendant under Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a.

    II.

    Judgment is hereby entered in this matter in favor of Plaintiff United States of America and against Defendant, and, pursuant to Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1), the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134 31001(s) (amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461), and Federal Trade Commission Rule 1.98, 16 CFR 1.98, 61 FR 54549 (Oct. 21, 1996), and 74 FR 857 (Jan. 9, 2009), Defendant Leucadia National Corporation is hereby ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred forty thousand dollars ($240,000). Payment of the civil penalty ordered hereby shall be made by wire transfer of funds or cashier's check. If the payment is made by wire transfer, Defendant shall contact Janie Ingalls of the Antitrust Division's Antitrust Documents Group at (202) 514-2481 for instructions before making the transfer. If the payment is made by cashier's check, the check shall be made payable to the United States Department of Justice and delivered to: Janie Ingalls, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 5th Street NW., Suite 1024, Washington, DC 20530.

    Defendant shall pay the full amount of the civil penalty within thirty (30) days of entry of this Final Judgment. In the event of a default or delay in payment, interest at the rate of eighteen (18) percent per annum shall accrue thereon from the date of the default or delay to the date of payment.

    III.

    Each party shall bear its own costs of this action.

    IV.

    Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.

    Dated: _____ United States District Judge
    [FR Doc. 2016-09915 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On November 16, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant) of Lawton, Oklahoma. GX 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules IV and V as a practitioner, on the ground that he does “not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Oklahoma, the State in which [he is] registered with the” Agency. Id. at 1.

    More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective May 28, 2013, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (hereinafter, OBNDD) issued a Stipulation and Agreed Order to Registrant, pursuant to which his authority to dispense controlled substances in schedules II and III was suspended “for two years”; the Order then alleged that his Oklahoma registration “expired on October 31, 2014,” and had not been renewed. Id. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that Registrant did “not have authority in Oklahoma to order, dispense, prescribe or administer any controlled substances,” and that as a consequence, DEA “must revoke [his] . . . registrations.” Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3)).1

    1 The Show Cause Order also notified registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. GX 1, at 2.

    Thereafter, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) determined that Registrant was no longer practicing at his registered location and was advised by Agents of the OBNDD that the premises appeared vacant. GX 9, at 1. The DI did, however, obtain an address for Registrant in Lawton, Oklahoma, which appeared to be that of a residence, and mailed the Show Cause Order to Registrant by certified mail, return receipt requested to this address. Id. On November 30, 2015, the DI received back the signed return-receipt card. Id. According to the DI, “[t]he signature appeared similar to the signature of [Registrant] . . . on other DEA records, which [Registrant] signed.” Id. The DI also emailed the Show Cause Order to Registrant at an email address which Registrant had listed when he applied for registration. Id.; GX 2, at 1; GX 8. According to the DI, “[t]he emailed copy was sent successfully on November 16, 2015, but I never received a response to” it. Id.

    On January 5, 2016, the Government submitted its Request for Final Agency Action. Therein, the Government stated that neither Registrant, “nor anyone representing him[,] has requested a hearing or otherwise corresponded with DEA.” Req. for Final Agency Action, at 5. In its Request, the Government sought a final order revoking Registrant's DEA registration based on the May 28, 2013 Stipulation and Agreed Order between the OBNDD and Registrant, as well as his act of allowing his state registration to expire on October 31, 2014. Id. at 3.

    However, on March 21, 2016, the Government filed a further pleading. See Request for Dismissal of Order to Show Cause. Therein, the Government noted that effective March 4, 2016, Registrant had entered a subsequent Stipulation and Agreed Order with the OBNDD, pursuant to which the OBNDD agreed to renew his state registration subject to four conditions; the Government provided a copy of the Order with its filing. Id. at 2. Those stipulations were that Registrant shall: (1) “Remain on probation for 18 months beginning on the date of entry of” the Order; (2) “be prohibited from ordering, storing, dispensing or administering” any controlled substances “during his probation”; (3) “be prohibited from” prescribing controlled substances in schedule II or III “until January 1, 2017”; and (4) run a PMP report of “his own prescribing . . . at the end of each calendar month” and submit an “affidavit that he has reviewed the PMP” report to the OBNDD and state that it “accurately reflects the [controlled substance] prescriptions he has authorized.” In re Rezaei, Stipulation and Agreed Order, at 2 (OBNDD, Mar. 4, 2016).

    Noting that the sole basis for this proceeding was Registrant's lack of state authority and that the OBNDD's Order has restored his authority to prescribe schedule IV and V controlled substances, the Government no longer seeks the revocation of Registrant's DEA registration. 2 See Request for Dismissal of Order to Show Cause, at 3. Notwithstanding that the Government seeks an Order dismissing the Show Cause Order, it also requests an Order restricting Registrant's DEA registration “to the extent of his controlled substances authorization under Oklahoma state law.” Id.

    2 The State Order, upon which this proceeding was based, contained numerous stipulated findings that clearly would have supported a prima facie case for revocation under the public interest standard of 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). These include: (1) That during a November 5, 2012 inspection, an OBNDD Agent and Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure Investigator had conducted an inspection of Respondent's clinic and found that Demerol and other drugs were kept in a locked desk located in a common area of the clinic and that the key was kept in an unlocked drawer at the receptionist's desk; (2) that “Respondent was unable to produce any . . . order forms, invoices, or inventories” for the drugs in the desk; (3) that Respondent stored other controlled substances in an unlocked cabinet in an area of the clinic which all employees, as well as construction workers who were renovating the clinic, had access to; (4) that Respondent also kept controlled substances in a large plastic storage box on a counter below the aforesaid cabinet; (5) that during the inspection, Respondent submitted to a urinalysis and tested positive for oxycodone and that he “did not have a valid prescription” for the drug; (6) that Respondent's administration logs showed that “on at least 3 occasions,” controlled drugs “were administered to either [himself] or [his] wife”; (6) that there was no patient file for two patients who were listed in the administration log; (7) that the drug administration log listed 11 entries for Demerol injections for “skin care” but did not list a patient name; (8) that Respondent's wife owned a skin care clinic that “had a separate address from the medical clinic” and which was unregistered, and that the OBNDD Agent inspected the clinic and found that controlled drugs were stored in an unlocked drawer in a treatment room and Respondent stated that the drugs had been prescribed but returned by his patients; (9) and that controlled drugs that were stored at the skin care clinic were either administered or dispensed to that clinic's “clients without maintaining an administration log.” GX 6, at 1-4.

    Based on the record submitted by the Government, I find that Respondent has been served in a constitutionally adequate manner and I find that service was effective no later than November 30, 2015. Based on the Government's further representation that since the date of service, neither Registrant, nor anyone representing him, has either requested a hearing or submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing, I find that Registrant has waived his right to either request a hearing or to submit a written statement. I therefore issue this Decision and Final Order based solely on the Investigative Record submitted by the Government. I make the following findings.

    Findings

    Registrant is the holder of DEA Registration #FR4496267, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules IV and V, at the registered address of Family Practice Clinic & Minor Emergency Medicine, 4645 W. Gore Blvd., Suite 1-2, Lawton, Oklahoma. GX 2. Registrant's registration does not expire until April 30, 2017. Id.

    Registrant is also the holder of an active medical license issued by the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision. According to the Board's Web site, Respondent is now practicing at 2502 West Gore Blvd., Lawton, Oklahoma. See http://www.okmedicalboard.org/licensee/MD/23655. He has also recently obtained a new state registration from the OBNDD. However, Registrant's OBNDD registration prohibits him “from ordering, storing, dispensing, or administering [controlled substances] from any [s]chedule during his probation,” which runs for 18 months beginning on March 4, 2016, and it further prohibits him “from authorizing prescriptions for [s]chedule II or [s]chedule III [controlled substances] until January 1, 2017.” Stipulation and Agreed Order, at 2.

    Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, Congress has defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Likewise, the CSA conditions the granting of a practitioner's application for registration on his/her possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under state law. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (“The Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . to dispense . . . controlled substances . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.”). And of further note, the CSA defines the term “dispense” as meaning “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user . . . by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.” Id. § 802(10) (emphasis added).

    Thus, the Agency has repeatedly held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012). And because a practitioner's authority under the CSA is based on his/her authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices, the Agency has further held that “to the extent a practitioner is not authorized under state law to dispense certain categories or schedules of controlled substances, he can no longer lawfully dispense them under federal law.” Kenneth Harold Bull, 78 FR 62666, 62672 (2013).

    For the same reason, where a state board limits a practitioner's controlled substance authority by prohibiting him from possessing controlled substances or by limiting his authority to prescribing, the practitioner's authority under his DEA registration must also be so limited. See, e.g., Steven M. Abbadessa, 74 FR 10077, 10082 (2009) (noting ambiguity in state agency's order as to whether it authorized physician to administer controlled substances at his clinic and requiring him to provide evidence that such activity was authorized by the State prior to doing so); cf. United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 140-41 (1975) (“In the case of a physician, [the CSA] contemplates that he is authorized by the State to practice medicine and to dispense drugs in connection with his professional practice. The federal registration . . . extends no further.”).

    Accordingly, although the OBNDD's Stipulation and Agreed Order effectively authorizes Registrant to prescribe schedule IV and V controlled substances, it affirmatively prohibits him from ordering, storing (possessing), administering and directly dispensing all controlled substances. While Registrant's DEA registration does not authorize him to handle schedule II and III controlled substances in any manner, his registration currently provides authority for him to order, store, administer and directly dispense schedule IV and V controlled substances. Because Registrant's DEA registration can only grant him authority to the extent that the State has granted him authority, I will order that his registration be restricted to authorize only the prescribing of controlled substances in schedules IV and V.

    Also, in the event Registrant intends to seek authority to prescribe schedule II or III controlled substances upon the expiration of the OBNDD's condition, he must apply for a modification of his DEA registration before doing so. See 21 CFR 1301.51. So too, in the event Registrant seeks to engage in the ordering, storing, dispensing or administering of any controlled substance upon the expiration of his probation, he must apply for a modification of his DEA registration before doing so. Finally, because the Oklahoma Medical Board's records list Registrant's practice address as being different from his DEA registered address, and it appears that Registrant is no longer practicing at the latter address, he is directed to inquire of the local DEA office as to whether he must obtain a modification of his registration to reflect his new practice address. See 21 CFR 1301.12(a) & (b).

    Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration# FR4496267 issued to Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D., be, and it hereby is, restricted to authorize only the prescribing of controlled substances in schedules IV and V. This Order is effective immediately.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09973 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0011] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application To Make and Register a Firearm (ATF Form 1 (5320.1) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 8099, on February 17, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until May 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Make and Register a Firearm.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF Form 1 (5320.1).

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Business or other for-profit.

    Other: Individuals or households; and State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Abstract: This form is filed to obtain permission to make and register a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm. Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm is illegal. The approval of the application effectuates the registration of the firearm to the applicant. For any person other than a government agency, the making incurs a tax of $200.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 25,716 respondents will take 3.86 hours to respond.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 102,808 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09874 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0014] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm (ATF Form 4 (5320.4) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 8100, on February 17, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until May 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF Form 4 (5320.4).

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Business or other for-profit.

    Other: Individuals or households; and Not-for-profit institutions.

    Abstract: This form is filed to obtain permission to transfer and register a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm. A transfer without approval and possession of an unregistered NFA firearm are illegal. The approval of the application effectuates the registration of a firearm to the transferee. There is a tax of $5 or $200 on the transfer of an NFA firearm with certain exceptions (see ATF Forms 3 and 5 for tax exempt transfer information).

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 123,339 respondents will take 3.66 hours to respond.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 466,755 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09875 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    On April 21, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Clallam County, Washington, et al., Civil Action No. 16-5300.

    The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) against Clallam County, Washington, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington National Guard. The complaint seeks recovery of costs incurred by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in responding to the release of hazardous substances at the Salt Creek Firing Range Site located primarily in Clallam County, Washington. The consent decree resolves the liability of the three defendants named in the lawsuit, as well as the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Coast Guard. The United States, on behalf of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard, will pay $579,198.03; Clallam County will pay $165,485.15; Washington State Department of Natural Resources will pay $74,468.32; and the Washington National Guard will pay $8,274.26. In return, the United States agrees not to sue the defendants under Section 107 of CERCLA.

    Publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Clallam County, Washington, et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-10945. All comments must be submitted not later than thirty (30) days after the publication of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By e-mail [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the proposed consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $6.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Susan M. Akers, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09918 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Firearms Act (NFA) Responsible Person Questionnaire (ATF Form 5320.23) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 9224, on February 24, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until May 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York Ave NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email: [email protected]. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: New collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: National Firearms Act (NFA) Responsible Person Questionnaire.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF Form 5320.23.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Individuals or households.

    Other: State Local or Tribal Government.

    Abstract: This form is filed with ATF Form 1, 4 or 5 applications when the applicant, maker, or transferee is other than an individual or government agency. This allows ATF to conduct background checks of persons who make, acquire, or possess firearms.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 115,829 respondents will take .25 hours to respond.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 57,914.5 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09877 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0015] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Tax Exempt Transfer and Registration of Firearm (ATF Form 5 (5320.5) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 8100, on February 17, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until May 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Tax Exempt Transfer and Registration of Firearm.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF Form 5 (5320.5).

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Other (if applicable): Individuals or Households; Business or other for-Profit; and Not-for-profit institutions.

    Abstract: This form is filed to obtain permission to make and transfer a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm. Transfer without approval and possession of an unregistered NFA firearm are illegal. The approval of the application effectuates the registration of a firearm to the transferee. The transferee claims an exemption from the transfer tax by filing this application.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 10,591 respondents will take .51 hours to respond.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 5,350 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: April 22, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09876 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1708] Body Worn Camera Technologies Market Survey AGENCY:

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The NIJ is soliciting information in support of the upcoming National Criminal Justice Technology Research, Test, and Evaluation Center (NIJ RT&E Center) “Market Survey of Body Worn Camera (BWC) Technologies.” This market survey, which will identify commercially available body worn camera systems, will be published by NIJ to assist purchasing agents or other representatives of law enforcement officials in their assessment of relevant information prior to making purchasing decisions. Comments with regard to the market survey itself, including which categories of information are appropriate for comparison, as well as promotional material (e.g., slick sheets) and print-quality images in electronic format, are also invited.

    DATES:

    Responses to this request will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Responses to this request may be submitted electronically in the body of, or as an attachment to, an email sent to [email protected] with the required subject line “Body Worn Camera Federal Register Response.” Questions and responses may also be sent by mail (please allow additional time for processing) to the following address: National Criminal Justice Technology Research, Test and Evaluation Center, ATTN: Body Worn Camera Federal Register Response, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, Mail Stop 17-N444, Laurel, MD 20723-6099.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information on this request, please contact Vivian Hung (NIJ RT&E Center) by telephone at (240) 228-2286 or [email protected] For more information on the NIJ RT&E Center, visit http://nij.gov/funding/awards/Pages/award-detail.aspx?award=2013-MU-CX-K111 and view the description, or contact Jack Harne (NIJ) by telephone at 202-616-2911 or at [email protected] Please note that these are not toll-free telephone numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Sought: Information is sought for an upcoming “Market Survey of Body Worn Camera (BWC) Technologies,” which seeks to identify commercially available body worn camera systems for law enforcement use.

    Usage: This market survey will be published by NIJ to assist law enforcement agencies in their assessment of relevant information prior to making purchasing decisions.

    Information Categories: Comments are invited with regard to the market survey, including which categories of information are appropriate for comparison, as well as promotional material (e.g., slick sheet) and print-quality photographs of the technology. At a minimum, the Center intends to include the following categories of information for each Body Worn Camera technology that may be of use to law enforcement officials:

    1. Vendor Information a. Name b. Address and phone number of corporate office c. Web site d. Years your company has been in business e. Number and types of customers (e.g., municipal, county, or state officers) f. Location where technology is manufactured, assembled, or refurbished 2. Product Information—BWC a. General i. Name and model number ii. Physical dimensions (height × width × depth, in inches) of device iii. Weight (in ounces) of device iv. Mounting options (e.g., head, chest, glasses, helmet, etc.) 1. Accessories needed for optional mounting locations v. Whether the BWC is able to mount on a vehicle for dashboard applications 1. If so, any accessories needed vi. LCD display (i.e., whether the BWC has a playback screen for on-person video viewing) vii. Recording capacity (i.e., the memory storage capacity of the BWC) viii. Operating conditions or limitations (e.g., temperature, humidity, precipitation, high wind, etc.) b. Video and Optics i. Maximum video resolution of the BWC (e.g., 640 × 480, 1080p) ii. Field of view of the BWC (e.g., 75°, 120°) iii. Lux rating of the BWC (i.e., minimum amount of light needed to produce an acceptable image) iv. Whether the BWC has a night mode and in what format (e.g., low light, IR lens, etc.) v. Recording speed of the BWC (e.g., 30 frames per second) vi. Recording format of the BWC (e.g., MPEG-4, MOV) vii. Recording time of the BWC under default resolution settings viii. Whether the BWC captures still photos ix. Whether the BWC embeds a time/date stamp in the recorded video 1. Whether there are any means to authenticate and validate the integrity of the time/date stamp x. Whether the BWC has a pre-event record feature (i.e., a feature that includes a data buffer before the recorded event to show what triggered the recording) 1. If so, the time buffered and whether audio is recorded xi. Whether the BWC possesses an event marking capability xii. Whether the BWC has wireless capabilities to communicate with a computer or external DVR unit c. Audio i. Microphone feature ii. Microphone sensitivity iii. Audio format of the BWC (e.g., MP2, AAC) iv. Whether there is a default police radio interface for the BWC d. Data Upload i. Single device vs. docking station for multiple video/audio upload ii. Data transfer method (e.g., wire, wireless, removable media card, etc.) iii. Manual vs. automatic uploading capabilities e. Battery Information i. Battery type used by the BWC and whether it is internal or removable ii. Recording duration iii. Battery standby duration iv. Battery charge time v. Battery lifetime until replacement needed vi. Battery replacement procedure and where it must be done (e.g., field or factory), if applicable vii. Availability of supplemental charger for emergency battery charging (e.g., hand crank, backup battery, external battery charger with USB, solar, etc.), if applicable f. GPS i. Whether the BWC possesses a GPS 1. If so, whether GPS coordinates are embedded in recorded video ii. Alternative geolocation methods (e.g., using smartphone or Bluetooth information via cell towers) g. Consumer Testing Results i. Sturdiness/fragility 1. Drop test results 2. Dust intrusion/water resistance rating (IPX scale) 3. Ruggedized 4. Pressure/depth 5. Shock 6. Vibrations ii. Whether the BWC has undergone environmental testing other than that listed above 1. If so, specify tests, pass/fail results, and ratings received h. Safeguards i. Privacy safeguards or features 1. Remote viewing 2. Remote activation/deactivation 3. Privacy masking (i.e., feature that allows blurring or completely blocking certain areas to protect personal privacy or sensitive information) 4. Redacting/editing capabilities ii. Safeguards for cyber security, unintentional disassembly, jamming, or intentional damage i. Regulatory i. Regulatory and Compliance safety requirements (e.g., FCC approved) and/or any potential NIJ Technology Standards, if applicable ii. Radiation safety standards (e.g., ANSI, ICRP, NCRP, EURATOM, etc.), if applicable j. Warranty and Maintenance Plans i. Length of warranty (in months) that comes standard with the system/device and the components that are covered ii. Optional extended warranties available 1. Duration and cost of extended warranties iii. Availability of extended maintenance plans 1. Duration and cost of extended maintenance plans iv. Service contract costs k. Auxiliary equipment (e.g., car chargers, emergency chargers, etc.) i. Manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) for each piece of auxiliary equipment l. MSRP without optional features, accessories or service plans m. Manufacturer's estimated lifetime of the device n. Other information or notes that are relevant to the system/device 3. Product Information—Software for Video Data Storage and Management a. Data Management i. Searching capabilities ii. Categorizing capabilities (e.g., by law enforcement officer, location, incident, etc.) iii. Tagging capabilities (i.e., a feature that allows users to add additional metadata, such as case number and case notes) iv. Archiving and file retention capacity v. Data saved on or offsite (e.g., cloud storage) 1. If saved offsite, specify data accessibility and storage costs 2. Video data storage capacity local vs. cloud 3. Capability to accommodate multiple site installations vi. Export capabilities 1. If yes, whether there is a traceability feature that shows which user exported the data vii. Redacting/editing capabilities 1. If redacted/edited, specify whether changes are permanent viii. Support provided for chain-of-custody requirements ix. Scalability for different organization size x. User management and role-based access levels b. Video Analytics i. Whether there is companion software to analyze the video and audio data recorded by the BWCs ii. Types of reports that are built into the software 1. Standard reports (e.g., distribution of number of hours of recording per officer in a given period) 2. Daily reports, historical reports, etc. 3. Audit reports that support chain-of-custody requirements 4. Customization of reports iii. Facial recognition capabilities iv. Weapons detection capabilities v. Other analytical capabilities not mentioned above c. Video Security and Authentication i. Compatibility of the BWC video outputs with existing video management software for viewing and recording ii. File integrity checks to ensure authenticity iii. Data protection mechanism while in transit and during storage (e.g., SSL, encryption, password strength, etc.) iv. Routine software updates, approximate frequency, and how it is updated (e.g., manual or automatic) v. Cost of software updates 4. Usability/Training a. Types of processes used to ensure usability of hardware and software products (e.g., requirements gathering, observation, task analysis, interaction design, usability testing, ergonomics, interoperability, etc.) b. Types of data gathered from the user community (e.g., interviews, observations during hands-on training, survey, satisfaction surveys, repeat customers, etc.) to evaluate your products, and how often it is collected c. Types of user-group meetings and frequency of their occurrence (e.g., dedicated face-to-face hosted meetings, in conjunction with established meetings such as those of the Body Work Video Steering Group and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Police Technology Subcommittee, etc., interactive webinars). d. Categories of problems reported to the vendor and estimated percentage of user community that experienced them within the last three (3) years i. Resolution(s) to the problems identified above e. Hours of technology support provided and location (e.g., telephone, web-based, or on site at agency), including any additional costs beyond the license/purchase f. Hours and type of training provided (e.g., on-site, web-based, pre-recorded, play environment etc.) 5. Installation a. Average time to install the complete BWC system and activate the first BWC device (in minutes, hours, or days) Nancy Rodriguez, Director, National Institute of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09958 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions AGENCY:

    Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed exemptions.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains notices of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). This notice includes the following proposed exemptions: D-11813, The Michael T. Sewell, M.D., P.S.C. Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan); D-11822, Plumbers' Pension Fund, Local 130, U.A. (the Plan or the Applicant); D-11858, Liberty Media 401(k) Savings Plan (the Plan); and, D-11866, Baxter International Inc. (Baxter or the Applicant).

    DATES:

    All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this Federal Register Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and requests for a hearing should state: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and (2) the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the hearing.

    All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No.__, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via email or FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by email to: [email protected], or by FAX to (202) 219-0204 by the end of the scheduled comment period. The applications for exemption and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1515, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Warning: All comments will be made available to the public. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as Social Security number, name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice to Interested Persons

    Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the Federal Register. Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption as published in the Federal Register and shall inform interested persons of their right to comment and to request a hearing (where appropriate).

    The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).1 Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.

    1 The Department has considered exemption applications received prior to December 27, 2011 under the exemption procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).

    The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.

    The Michael T. Sewell, M.D., P.S.C. Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan) Located in Bardstown, Kentucky [Application No. D-11813] Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) and section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D) and (E) of the Code,2 shall not apply to the cash sale (the Sale) by the individually-directed account (the Account) in the Plan of Michael T. Sewell, M.D. (Dr. Sewell or the Applicant) of a parcel of unimproved real property (the Property), to Dr. Sewell, a party in interest with respect to the Plan; provided that:

    2 For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to specific provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.

    (a) The Sale is a one-time transaction for cash;

    (b) The sales price for the Property is the greater of: $916,501; or the sum of the fair market value of the Property, as established by a qualified independent appraiser (the Appraiser), and the fair market value of timber on the Property, as determined by a qualified independent timber appraiser (the Forester), in separate, updated appraisal reports (the Appraisal Reports) on the date of the Sale;

    (c) The Account pays no real estate fees or commissions in connection with the Sale;

    (d) The terms of the Sale are no less favorable to the Account than the terms the Account would receive under similar circumstances in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party; and

    (e) Michael T. Sewell, M.D., P.S.C. (the Employer) bears 100% of the costs of obtaining this exemption, if granted.

    Summary of Facts and Representations  3

    3 The Summary of Facts and Representations is based on the Applicant's representations and does not reflect the views of the Department, unless indicated otherwise.

    1. The Employer is an orthopedic medical practice that was formed by Dr. Sewell under Kentucky law on December 23, 1990. The Employer is located at 875 Pennsylvania Avenue in Bardstown, Kentucky.

    2. The Plan is a defined contribution plan that allows participants to self-direct the investments of their individual accounts. Dr. Sewell is a 65 year old participant in the Plan and he is also the Plan trustee. As of June 17, 2015, Dr. Sewell's Account in the Plan had total assets of approximately $916,501. Nearly all of the Account's assets is comprised of Property described herein.

    3. In addressing the Account's lack of diversification, the Applicant represents that in November 2012, Dr. Sewell completed a partial distribution of his Account by rolling over $704,599.09 to an individual retirement account (the IRA). At that time, the Account still contained an illiquid investment in a real estate investment trust (REIT), in addition to the subject Property. Subsequently, the REIT was liquidated, and proceeds of $17,011.20 were rolled over into the IRA.

    Prior to the rollover, the Applicant represents that Dr. Sewell's Account was diversified. Over time, due to the substantial increase in the value of the Property and the timber situated thereon, Dr. Sewell's Account became heavily concentrated in the Property.

    4. On February 27, 1996, the Account purchased the Property, consisting of 277.15 acres of rural farmland, from Mr. Edgar M. Deats and Mrs. Frances E. Deats, who are unrelated parties, for a total cash purchase price of $279,997.80, that includes $4,997.80 in closing expenses. The Property, is located on Deatsville Road in Coxs Creek, Kentucky, and is legally described as “DB 327 PG 678 PC 2 SLOT 265 Nelson Co.” The Property was purchased by Dr. Sewell's Account for capital appreciation and it adjoins a farm that is owned by Dr. Sewell. Approximately 19% of the Property is grassland and 81% timberland.

    5. Since the time of acquisition by the Account, the Property has not been used by or leased to anyone. Aside from the Property's total acquisition price of $279,997.80, the Account has paid property taxes totaling $9,093.66 (or approximately $454 per year); appraisal fees of $5,950; $802.11 for liability insurance; and $4,207.50 for legal and related fees. Thus, the aggregate cost of acquiring and holding the Property by the Account was $300,051.07 ($279,997.80 + $20,053.27), as of November 10, 2015.

    6. The Applicant is requesting an individual exemption from the Department to allow Dr. Sewell to purchase the Property from his Account. In this regard, the Applicant states that: (a) It would be difficult for Dr. Sewell to make distributions from his Account upon reaching age 701/2 if the Account continues to hold the Property; (b) if Dr. Sewell decides to terminate the Plan, the tax laws would not permit the rollover of the Property into an individual retirement account; and (c) the value of the grassland portion of the Property, some of which could be used to grow corn, soybeans, and wheat, has stagnated.

    The proposed Sale will be a one-time transaction for cash, for the greater of: $916,501; or the sum of the fair market value of the Property, as established by the Appraiser, and the fair market value of the merchantable timber located on the Property, as determined by the Forester, in separate, updated Appraisal Reports on the date of the Sale. In addition, the terms of the proposed Sale will be at least as favorable to the Account as those obtainable in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party. Further, the Account will pay no real estate commission, costs, or other expenses in connection with the proposed Sale, and the Employer will pay 100% of the costs of obtaining this exemption, if granted. Finally, the Sale will not be part of an agreement, arrangement or understanding designed to benefit Dr. Sewell or the Employer.

    7. Section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act states that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause a plan to engage in a transaction if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect sale or exchange of any property between the Plan and a party in interest, or a transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a party in interest, of any assets of the Plan is also a prohibited transaction. The term party in interest is defined by section 3(14) of the Act to include any fiduciary. Dr. Sewell is a party in interest under section 3(14)(A) of the Act as a fiduciary with respect to the Plan because he is the Plan trustee. Therefore, the Sale of the Property by the Account to Dr. Sewell would violate section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act.

    In addition, section 406(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a plan fiduciary from dealing with the assets of the plan in his own interest or for his own account. Moreover, section 406(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a plan fiduciary, in his individual or in any other capacity, from acting in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party whose interests are adverse to the interests of the plan or the interests of its participants or beneficiaries.

    The sale represents a violation of section 406(b)(1) of the Act since Dr. Sewell would be causing his Account to sell the Property to himself. In addition, the sale represents a violation of section 406(b)(2) of the Act since Dr. Sewell would be acting on both sides of the transaction.

    8. Mr. Roger F. Leggett of Bardstown, Kentucky, has been appointed by Dr. Sewell to serve as the Appraiser and, in such capacity, to prepare the Appraisal Report of the Property. The Appraiser, a Certified General Appraiser, has been licensed in the State of Kentucky since 1994. The Appraiser represents that he has performed appraisal work in Kentucky for more than 45 years, of which he spent more than 25 years working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture where he completed in-house appraisals of farms, rural residences and chattels. The Appraiser states that the gross revenues he received from parties in interest with respect to the Plan, including the preparation of the Appraisal Report, represented approximately 1.8% of his actual gross revenues in 2014.

    9. In an Appraisal Report dated October 22, 2014, the Appraiser describes the Property as a 277.15 acre tract of rural farmland with a barn situated thereon, located in the northwest section of Nelson County, Kentucky. The Appraiser notes that the Property has level to moderately sloping terrain, consisting of grassland and woodland, with little marketable timber.

    The Appraiser has used the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Property. The Appraiser states that he could not use the Income Approach to valuation because there are no crops or income produced by the Property. The Appraiser also explains that the Cost Approach could not be used to value the Property because there are no improvements to the site.

    The Appraiser represents that the Sales Comparison Approach is the most reliable because there were real estate sales available for comparison. In this regard, the Appraiser states that he reviewed public records, Multiple Listing Service data, and obtained information from other real estate agents and land owners. Based on the Sales Comparison Approach, the Appraiser has placed the fair market value of the Property at $831,450, as of October 22, 2014.

    The Appraiser is also of the view that the Property does not have any assemblage value. The Appraiser explains that assemblage value is where an adjoining property is purchased to enhance the value of the present property. According to the Appraiser, this factor works mainly in commercial or industrial property where one may need to adjoin land for a parking lot or to be able to make the building larger. The Appraiser represents that it has been his experience that assemblage value is not typically the case with farmland because, generally, as a tract of farmland increases in size, the per acre value decreases. The Appraiser also states that this has been demonstrated repeatedly in local auctions, where land almost always sells for more per acre in smaller tracts, as opposed to larger tracts, and there usually are more buyers for smaller tracts than for larger tracts.

    In an addendum to the Appraisal Report dated November 11, 2015, the Appraiser states that fair market value of the Property has not changed since the 2014 valuation.

    10. Mr. Steve Gray of Radcliff, Kentucky has been retained by Dr. Sewell, on behalf of the Account, to prepare a report of the estimated value of the timber that is located on the Property because the Appraiser disclaimed having knowledge of timber values. The Forester is a Certified Natural Resource Conservation Service-Technical Service Provider, and is licensed in the State of Kentucky. The Forester, who is a member of the Association of Consulting Foresters and the Society of American Foresters, represents that he has over thirty years' experience as a Service Forester and Forestry Supervisor with the Kentucky Division of Forestry. The Forester further represents that he has no pre-existing relationship with Dr. Sewell.

    The Forester represents that he conducted a forest inventory of the Property on September 22, 2015, using “78 ten factor prism plots” systematically placed throughout the forested parts of the Property. At each plot location, the Forester explains that trees 12 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) were recorded by species, dbh, and merchantable height. The Forester also represents that plot data indicated an average of 33 merchantable trees per acre, yielding an average volume per acre of 3,316 board feet (bd. ft.). The Forester further explains that 232 acres of the Property would be classified as forest, which when considering the 3,616 bd. ft. per acre, would yield a total estimated value of 739,480 bd. ft.

    The Forester notes that the Property lies in an area with little forest industry. The Forester explains that harvested forest products must be transported at least 50 miles to saw mills that offer competitive prices for these products. The Forester states that transportation distance not only affects the value of the standing timber, but also the amount of timber per acre required to make a timber harvest economically feasible.

    The Forester represents that based on his experience, approximately 1,700 bd. ft. per acre is required to make a timber harvest economically feasible in the area of the Property. Moreover, the Forester explains, comparable properties in the area would likely have up to 1,700 bd. ft. per acre without any additional timber value being considered in the Property sale. Subtracting 1,700 bd. ft. per acre from the average of 3,316 bd. ft. per acre on the Property, the Forester states that this leaves 1,616 bd. ft. to be considered as additional value that is above the valuation in the Property Appraisal Report.

    According to the Forester, the Property contains 232 acres of forest with an estimated 1,616 bd. ft. acre, for a total volume of 374,912 bd. ft. The Forester explains that the total volume was apportioned to various species of trees, resulting in a fair market value for the timber of $85,051 as of October 3, 2015.

    Thus, based on the $831,450 fair market value of the Property, as determined by the Appraiser, and the $85,051 fair market value of the timber, as determined by the Forester, the aggregate fair market value of the Property is $916,501. Both the Appraiser and the Forester will update their respective Appraisal Reports on the date of the Sale.

    11. The Applicant represents that the proposed transaction is administratively feasible because the Sale will be a one-time transaction for cash. The Applicant also represents that the proposed transaction is in the interest of the Account because the Sale will not cause the Account to incur any expenses, real estate commissions, or other fees. Further, the Applicant explains that the Sale will yield a profit to the Account that is attributable to the Property's appreciation.

    In addition, the Applicant represents that the proposed transaction is protective of the rights of Dr. Sewell, as a Plan participant, because the Sale will allow him to reinvest the proceeds from the Sale in other investments that are more liquid and have a greater chance of capital appreciation, without recurring expenses.

    The Applicant also represents that if the proposed exemption is not granted, the Account will experience a hardship or economic loss because Dr. Sewell is approaching retirement age, and his Account will not be able to satisfy the Internal Revenue Service's required minimum distribution requirements due to the lack of divisibility of the Property. Finally, the Applicant represents that the Sale is not part of an agreement, arrangement or understanding designed to benefit Dr. Sewell.

    12. In summary, the Applicant represents that the proposed transaction will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption as set forth in section 408(a) of the Act for the following reasons:

    (a) The Sale will be a one-time transaction for cash;

    (b) The sales price for the Property will be the greater of: $916,501; or the sum of the fair market value of the Property, as established by the Appraiser, and the fair market value of the timber, as determined by the Forester, in separate, updated Appraisal Reports on the date of the Sale;

    (c) The Account will pay no real estate fees or commissions in connection with the Sale;

    (d) The terms of the Sale will be no less favorable to the Account than the terms the Account would receive under similar circumstances in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party; and

    (e) The Employer will bear 100% of the costs of obtaining this exemption, if granted.

    Notice to Interested Persons

    Because Dr. Sewell is the sole person in the Plan whose Account is affected by the proposed transaction, it has been determined that there is no need to distribute the notice of proposed exemption (the Notice) to interested persons. Therefore, comments and requests for a hearing are due thirty (30) days after publication of the Notice in the Federal Register.

    All comments will be made available to the public.

    Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8567. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Plumbers' Pension Fund, Local 130, U.A. (the Plan, or the Applicant) Located in Chicago, IL [Application No. D-11822] Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 46637, 66644, October 27, 2011).4 If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) and 406(a)(1)(D) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and (D) of the Code, shall not apply to the sale (the Sale) of two commercial buildings (the Properties), by the Plan to the Plumbers' Pension Fund, Local 130, U.A. (the Union), a party in interest with respect to the Plan, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

    4 For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to specific provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.

    (a) The Sale is a one-time transaction for cash;

    (b) The price paid by the Union to the Plan is equal to the greater of: (1) $1,640,000, or (2) the fair market value of the Properties, as determined by a qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser) as of the date of the Sale;

    (c) The Plan does not pay any appraisal fees, real estate fees, commissions, costs or other expenses in connection with the Sale;

    (d) The Plan trustees appointed by the Union (the Union Trustees) recuse themselves from: (1) Discussions and voting with respect to the Plan's decision to enter into the Sale; and (2) all aspects of the selection and engagement of the Independent Appraiser for the purposes of determining the fair market value of the Properties on the date of the Sale;

    (e) The Plan trustees appointed by the employer associations (the Employer Trustees), who have no interest in the Sale: (1) Determine, among other things, whether it is in the interest of the Plan to proceed with the Sale; (2) review and approve the methodology used by the Independent Appraiser in the independent appraisal report (the Appraisal Report) that is being relied upon; and (3) ensure that such methodology is applied by the Independent Appraiser in determining the fair market value of the Properties on the date of the Sale; and

    (f) The Sale is not part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit the Union.

    Summary of Facts and Representations  5

    5 The Summary of Facts and Representations is based on the Applicant's representations and does not reflect the views of the Department, unless indicated otherwise.

    1. The Plan. The Plan is a multi-employer defined benefit plan which was established on June 1, 1953, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between various contractor associations (the Employer Associations) and the Union (the CBA). Pursuant to the CBA, the Employer Associations are required to make monthly contributions to the Plan on behalf of their members at a specified amount based upon hours worked. As of September 30, 2015, the Plan covered 9,169 participants and held $931,622,990 in total assets.

    The Plan is administered by a ten member Board of Trustees (the Trustees), consisting of five Employer Trustees and five Union Trustees. The Trustees have ultimate fiduciary, operational, and investment discretion over the Plan's assets, and have entered into an agreement for The Northern Trust Company to act as Master Trustee and Custodian for the Plan.

    2. The Properties. Included among the assets of the Plan are the Properties, which are located at 1330-1332 and 1336 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. The Properties were originally purchased by the Plan on November 30, 2000, from an unrelated party for a total purchase price of $1,365,000. The Plan did not finance the purchase of either Property and neither is currently encumbered by a mortgage.

    The building located at 1330-1332 West Washington Boulevard (the 1330-1332 Building) was constructed in 1939 and consists of a single warehouse and industrial space that covers 9,600 square feet. As represented by the Applicant, the 1330-1332 Building is specifically suited to accommodate printing operations and, as constructed, is unsuitable for use as an office space. Since its acquisition by the Plan, the 1330-1332 Building has not been leased to, or used by, a party in interest to the Plan. The 1330-1332 Building, which is currently vacant, was formerly leased by the Plan to an unrelated party. The Building located at 1336 West Washington Boulevard (the 1336 Building) was constructed in 1926 and consists of 6,500 square feet of office and storage space.

    3. Lease of the 1336 Building. Effective October 1, 2002, the Trustees entered into an agreement to lease office space in the 1336 Building to the Union for a term of eight years (the 1336 Building Lease). Pursuant to its terms, the 1336 Building Lease requires the Union to pay to the Plan an annual base rental amount of $51,620, payable in equal monthly installments of $4,301.67. As represented by the Applicant, and as reflected in the relevant Trustee meeting minutes, the Union Trustees recused themselves from the decision-making process regarding the 1336 Building Lease.

    Since the initial execution, the Plan and Union have agreed to two amendments to the 1336 Building Lease. First, on December 11, 2002, the Plan and Union executed an amendment to provide for semi-annual rent adjustments based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Second, on October 1, 2010, the Plan and Union executed a Lease Modification and Extension Agreement (the 1336 Building Lease Extension) which: (a) Extended the term of the 1336 Building Lease for an additional 8 years, expiring September 30, 2018; and (b) raised the base monthly rent amount to $5,192, with provisions for future CPI adjustments to the rent. As documented in the relevant Trustee meeting minutes, the Union Trustees recused themselves from the decision-making process regarding the 1336 Building Lease Extension. Current monthly rent under the 1336 Building Lease is $5,492.

    With respect to the 1336 Building Lease, the Applicant is relying upon Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 76-1 (41 FR 12740, March 26, 1976, as corrected by 41 FR 16620, April 20, 1976), and PTE 77-10 (42 FR 33918, July 1, 1977). Part C of PTE 76-1 provides conditional exemptive relief from the prohibited transaction provisions of sections 406(a) and 407(a) of the Act for the leasing of office space by a multiple employer plan to a participating employee organization, participating employer, or another multiemployer plan. PTE 77-10, which complements PTE 76-1, provides conditional exemptive relief from the prohibited transaction provisions of section 406(b)(2) of the Act with respect to the leasing of office space by a multiple employer plan to a participating employee organization, participating employer, or another multiemployer plan. The Applicant represents that the 1336 Building Lease meets all of the required conditions under PTEs 76-1 and 77-10. The Department, however, expresses no opinion herein on whether the requirements of PTEs 76-1 and 77-10 have been met by the Applicant.

    4. Property-Related Expenses. In connection with its ownership of the Properties, the Plan currently generates approximately $65,784 in rental income on an annual basis from the 1336 Building Lease. This income, however, is offset by recurring expenses on the Properties, which include real estate taxes, general maintenance costs, and utility costs. For the Plan year ending May 31, 2015, the Plan incurred expenses totaling $34,389.24 in connection with its ownership of the Properties. These incurred expenses included $13,780.75 in real estate taxes, $11,112.00 in insurance costs, and $9,505.49 in utility and maintenance costs.

    5. Attempt to Sell the 1330-1332 Building. In August 2012, the Trustees agreed to pursue a sale of the 1330-1332 Building to an unrelated buyer. At the time, the Trustees had determined that the 1330-1332 Building had become a non-performing asset for the Plan. On August 1, 2012, the Trustees entered into an Exclusive Sale and Lease Agreement (the Sale and Lease Agreement) with Jameson Real Estate, LLC (Jameson), of Chicago, Illinois, an unrelated party with respect to the Plan. Pursuant to the Sale and Lease Agreement, the Trustees granted to Jameson the exclusive right to either: (a) Sell the 1330-1332 Building for an amount within the range of $75.00-$95.00 per square foot; or (b) lease the 1330-1332 Building to an unrelated party for a monthly amount within the range of $8.50-$10.00 per square foot. The Plan received no offers in connection with its efforts to sell or rent the 1330-1332 Building.

    6. Union's Offer to Purchase the Properties. During the Trustees' March 14, 2013 meeting, Union Trustee, Ken Turnquist, informed the Trustees that the Union was interested in purchasing both of the Properties from the Plan, and that he was in the early stages of putting together a Letter of Intent to do so. The Union subsequently assessed an inspection report (the Inspection Report), which revealed that the Properties were in need of certain remedial masonry and environmental work. Specifically, the Inspection Report concluded that the 1336 Building required complete tuck-pointing of its North and West facing elevations and a rebuild of the six inch exterior veneer of its chimneys (the Masonry Repairs). Additionally, the Inspection Report concluded that environmental considerations warranted the removal of an obsolete underground oil tank from beneath the 1330-1332 Building (the Environmental Repairs).

    Following receipt of the Inspection Report, the Union solicited and received multiple bids to complete the above-cited masonry and environmental repairs. With regard to the Masonry Repairs, the Union received a low bid of $174,421.00 (the Masonry Bid) from Grove Masonry Maintenance, Inc. of Alsip, Illinois, an unrelated party with respect to the Plan. With regard to the Environmental Repairs, the Union received a low bid of $39,500.00 (the Water Tank Removal Bid) from WM. J. Scown Building Company of Wheeling, Illinois, also an unrelated party with respect to the Plan.

    7. During the Trustees' March 6, 2014 meeting, Mr. Turnquist presented the Trustees with three documents: (a) An offer from the Union to purchase the Properties for $1,416,000.00 (the March 2014 Offer); (b) an appraisal report completed by Charles G. Argianas and Robert S. Huth of the Industrial Appraisal Company, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (the Independent Appraiser), valuing the Properties at $1,630,000.00 as of January 23, 2014 (the January 2014 Appraisal Report); and (c) the above-noted Masonry and Water Tank Removal Bids. Following recusal by the Union Trustees, the Employer Trustees proceeded to review and discuss the March 2014 Offer.

    The Employer Trustees determined that it was in the best interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries to sell the Properties at their fair market value. In this regard, the Employer Trustees determined that the Plan would not assume the Remediation Costs as an offset to the purchase price. On September 15, 2015, the Employer Trustees communicated to the Union that the Plan was seeking full fair market value of $1,640,000.00 for the Properties with no offset. The Union thereafter accepted the Employer Trustees' amended offer.

    8. Relevant Terms of the Sale. As stated in the Purchase Agreement, the Union will deposit $50,000 into an escrow account held for the benefit of the Plan with an unrelated escrow agent. The remaining balance of $1,590,000 will be paid by the Union to the Plan at closing by cash, certified or cashier's check, or wire transfer. As also stated in the Purchase Agreement, the Plan will pay no real estate fees or commissions, or incur any other expenses or costs as a result of the Sale. In this regard, the Union will assume all closing costs associated with the Sale, including the city, county, and state transfer taxes that are associated with the transaction. Finally, the Plan will pay no fees to the Independent Appraiser in connection with the Sale.

    9. Legal Analysis. The Applicant has requested an administrative exemption from the Department because the proposed Sale violates several provisions of the Act. Section 406(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause a plan to engage in a transaction if the fiduciary knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between a plan and a party in interest. Further, section 406(a)(1)(D) of the Act provides that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause a plan to engage in a transaction if the fiduciary knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a party in interest, of any assets of the plan.

    Section 3(14)(D) of the Act defines the term “party in interest” to include an employee organization any of whose members are covered by such plan. Section 3(14)(A) of the Act defines the term “party in interest” to include any fiduciary of such plan. Thus, the Union, as an employee organization whose members are covered by the Plan, and the Trustees, as fiduciaries to the Plan, are parties in interest with respect to the Plan, pursuant to sections 3(14)(A) and 3(14)(D) of the Act, respectively. Accordingly, the Sale would constitute a violation of section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act.

    10. The Qualified Independent Appraiser. On November 2, 2012, Terry Musto, Fund Administrator to the Plan, engaged the Industrial Appraisal Company to render an opinion as to the fair market value of the Properties. As represented by the Applicant, Mr. Musto is neither a Union official nor a Union member. The Applicant further represents that Mr. Musto has been delegated the power and authority to engage service providers on behalf of the Plan.

    As mentioned above, Charles C. Argianas and Robert S. Huth of the Industrial Appraisal Company completed the January 2014 Appraisal Report. Subsequently, on January 9, 2015, Mr. Argianas and Maksym Smolyak completed an updated appraisal report of the Properties, as of December 22, 2014 (the January 2015 Appraisal Report).6

    6 The January 2014 and the January 2015 Appraisal Reports are together referred to herein as the “Appraisal Reports.”

    Mr. Argianas is a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in the State of Illinois (License #553.000164). He is also a member of the Appraisal Institute. Mr. Smolyak is an Associate Real Estate Trainee Appraiser, and has performed and assisted in real estate consulting and appraisal assignments involving various properties throughout Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

    Messrs. Argianas and Smolyak have certified that they have “no present or prospective interest in the [P]roperty that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved,” and that the fees derived from parties in interest are equal to less than 1/10th of 1% of Industrial Appraisal Company's revenues for 2014, from all sources, and that the Industrial Appraisal Company has never been engaged by the Union, or any other party in interest to the Plan. Messrs. Argianas and Smolyak have also acknowledged that they are aware that the Appraisal Reports are being used for the purposes of obtaining an individual exemption from the Department.

    As represented in the Appraisal Reports, Messrs. Argianas and Smolyak performed the following underlying tasks to determine the Properties' value: (a) An analysis of regional, city, market area, site, and improvement data; (b) an inspection of the Properties and the immediate market area; and (c) a review of data regarding real estate taxes, zoning, and utilities.

    In valuing the Properties, Messrs. Argianas and Smolyak considered all of the commonly-accepted approaches to property valuation, including the Cost Approach, Income Capitalization Approach and Sales Comparison Approach. After considering each of the three approaches separately, they determined that the Sales Comparison Approach warranted primary consideration in establishing market value for the Properties. Messrs. Argianas and Smolyak state that the Sales Comparison Approach is most reliable when there are a sufficient number of veritable sales and offerings that are representative of a subject property. In such a case, they explain, fewer adjustments increase the reliability of the ultimate valuation. With respect to the other valuation approaches, Messrs. Argianas and Smolyak accorded “due consideration” to the Income Capitalization Approach, and “little consideration” to the Cost Approach.

    After inspecting the Properties and analyzing all relevant data, Messrs. Argianas and Smolyak determined the “AS-IS” Fee Simple Market Value of the Properties to be $1,430,000, as of December 22, 2014 in the January 2015 Appraisal Report. To arrive at their valuation conclusion for the Properties, Messrs. Argianas and Smolyak first assigned a full fair market value of $1,640,000 to the Properties' land, structure, and improvements. They then deducted $210,000 from that amount to account for the Remediation Costs.

    The Employer Trustees and the Union have agreed to the purchase price of $1,640,000, which represents the full fair market value of the Properties with no offsets for the Remediation Costs or other costs. As a specific condition of this proposed exemption, the Independent Appraiser will reassess the fair market value of the Properties on the Sale date in an updated appraisal (the Updated Appraisal). With respect to the Updated Appraisal, the Employer Trustees will ensure that the Independent Appraiser's valuation methodology is properly applied in determining the fair market value of the Properties.

    11. Statutory Findings. The Applicant represents that the proposed exemption is administratively feasible because it involves a one-time sale of the Properties for cash. As such, the proposed exemption will not require ongoing oversight by the Department. In addition, the Applicant represents that the proposed exemption is in the interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries because the Sale will facilitate a more productive investment vehicle for the Plan. In this regard, the Applicant estimates that the proceeds from the Sale will generate annual income in excess of $100,000 for the Plan, going forward.

    In addition, the Applicant represents that anticipated income to the Plan following the Sale will significantly exceed the income which the Plan would realize through a continued ownership of the Properties. The Applicant points out that the Plan currently generates approximately $65,000 in rental income on an annual basis as the owner of the Properties. This income, however, is offset by recurring expenses, which include real estate taxes, general upkeep and maintenance costs, and utility costs. The Applicant represents that an offset of these costs leaves the Plan with approximately $11,000 in annual net income as owner of the Properties.

    13. Summary. In summary, it is represented that the proposed transaction satisfies or will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act because:

    (a) The Sale will be a one-time transaction for cash.

    (b) The price paid by the Union to the Plan will be equal to the greater of: (1) $1,640,000, or (2) the fair market value of the Properties, as determined by the Independent Appraiser as of the date of the Sale;

    (c) The Plan will not pay any appraisal fees, real estate fees, commissions, costs or other expenses in connection with the Sale;

    (d) The Union Trustees will recuse themselves from: (1) Discussions and voting with respect to the Plan's decision to enter into the Sale; and (2) all aspects of the selection and engagement of the Independent Appraiser for the purposes of determining the fair market value of the Properties on the date of the Sale;

    (e) The Employer Trustees, who have no interest in the Sale: (1) Will determine, among other things, whether it is in the best interest of the Plan to proceed with the Sale of the Properties; (2) will review and approve the methodology used by the Independent Appraiser in the Appraisal Report that is being relied upon; and (3) will ensure that such methodology is applied by the Independent Appraiser in determining the fair market value of the Properties on the date of the Sale; and

    (f) The Sale will not be part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit the Union.

    Notice to Interested Persons

    The persons who may be interested in the publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) include all individuals who are participants in the Plan. It is represented that such interested persons will be notified of the publication of the Notice by first class mail to such interested person's last known address within fifteen (15) days of publication of the Notice in the Federal Register. Such mailing will contain a copy of the Notice, as it appears in the Federal Register on the date of publication, plus a copy of the Supplemental Statement, as required, pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2), which will advise all interested persons of their right to comment on and/or to request a hearing. All written comments or hearing requests must be received by the Department from interested persons within 45 days of the publication of this proposed exemption in the Federal Register.

    All comments will be made available to the public. Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph Brennan of the Department at (202) 693-8456. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Liberty Media 401(k) Savings Plan (the Plan)

    Located in Englewood, CO

    [Application No. D-11858]
    Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA or the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).7

    7 For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to the provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.

    Section I. Covered Transactions

    If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act shall not apply to: (1) The acquisition by the Plan of certain stock subscription rights (the Rights) to purchase shares of Liberty Broadband Series C common stock (LB Series C Stock), in connection with a rights offering (the Rights Offering) held by Liberty Broadband Corporation (Liberty Broadband), a party in interest with respect to the Plan; and (2) the holding of the Rights by the Plan during the subscription period of the Rights Offering, provided that the conditions described in Section II below have been met.

    Section II. Conditions for Relief

    (a) The Plan's acquisition of the Rights resulted solely from an independent corporate act of Liberty Broadband;

    (b) All holders of Liberty Broadband Series A common stock and Liberty Broadband Series C common stock (collectively, the LB Stock), including the Plan, were issued the same proportionate number of Rights based on the number of shares of LB Stock held by each such shareholder;

    (c) For purposes of the Rights Offering, all holders of LB Stock, including the Plan, were treated in a like manner;

    (d) The acquisition of the Rights by the Plan was made in a manner that was consistent with provisions of the Plan for the individually-directed investment of participant accounts;

    (e) The Liberty Media 401(k) Savings Plan Administrative Committee (the Committee) directed the Plan trustee to sell the Rights on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, in accordance with Plan provisions that precluded the Plan from acquiring additional shares of LB Stock;

    (f) The Committee did not exercise any discretion with respect to the acquisition and holding of the Rights; and

    (g) The Plan did not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the acquisition or holding of the Rights, and did not pay any commissions to Liberty Broadband, Liberty Media Corporation, TruePosition, Inc., or any affiliates of the foregoing in connection with the sale of the Rights.

    Effective Date: The proposed exemption, if granted, will be effective from December 15, 2014, the date that the Plan received the Rights, until December 17, 2014, the date the Rights were sold by the Plan on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

    Summary of Facts and Representations  8

    8 The Summary of Facts and Representations is based on Liberty Media's representations and does not reflect the views of the Department, unless indicated otherwise.

    Background

    1. Liberty Media Corporation (Liberty Media) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Englewood, Colorado. Liberty Media is a publicly traded corporation primarily engaged in media, communications and entertainment operating businesses through several subsidiaries, including Liberty Broadband Corporation (Liberty Broadband). Liberty Broadband holds ownership interests in Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter Communications), TruePosition, Inc. (TruePosition), and a minority equity investment in Time Warner Cable, among other debt and equity assets.

    2. Liberty Media sponsors and maintains the Liberty Media 401(k) Savings Plan (the Plan). The assets of the Plan are held in the Liberty Media 401(k) Savings Plan Trust (the Trust). The Plan and Trust were created for the exclusive benefit of employee-participants and their beneficiaries. Liberty Media represents that the Plan is intended to qualify under sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Code, and the Trust is intended to be exempt under Section 501(a) of the Code.

    The Plan allows participants to direct the investment of their entire Plan accounts into any of 22 investment alternatives, including certain employer securities issued by Liberty Media such as Liberty Media's Series A and Series C common stock, as well as employer securities issued by other participating employers in the Plan. The Liberty Media 401(k) Savings Plan Administrative Committee (the Committee) is appointed by the board of directors of Liberty Media and has investment discretion over the Plan's investments, except to the extent that the participants can direct the investment of their Plan accounts. The trustee of the Plan (the Trustee) is Fidelity Management Trust Company (Fidelity). The Trustee acts as custodian of Plan assets, holding legal title to Plan assets, and executing investment directions in accordance with the participants' written instructions.

    The Spin-Off of Liberty Broadband

    3. On November 4, 2014, Liberty Media engaged in a spin-off (the Spin-Off) of its subsidiary, Liberty Broadband. Liberty Media notes that, at the time of the Spin-Off, Liberty Broadband owned a 100% ownership interest in TruePosition, and certain other equity and debt interests.

    4. According to Liberty Media, for every share of Liberty Media's Series A common stock held by a shareholder, including the Plan, as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on October 29, 2014, the shareholder received one quarter (1/4) of a share of Liberty Broadband's Series A common stock (LB Series A Stock), with cash issued in lieu of fractional shares. Furthermore, for every share of Liberty Media's Series C common stock held by a shareholder, including the Plan, as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on October 29, 2014, the shareholder received one quarter (1/4) of a share of Liberty Broadband's Series C common stock (LB Series C Stock), with cash issued in lieu of fractional shares. Liberty Media explains that the shares of LB Series A Stock and LB Series C Stock (collectively, the LB Stock) were distributed as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on November 4, 2014 (the Spin-Off Date). Liberty Media notes that Liberty Broadband continued to own its interests in TruePosition, among its other interests, following the Spin-Off Date.

    5. According to Liberty Media, the LB Stock received by the Plan as a result of the Spin-Off was allocated to the Plan participants' accounts in the same proportion as the shares were distributed in the Spin-Off. However, Liberty Media explains that, effective as of the Spin-Off Date, both the Plan and Trust were amended so as to preclude additional investments in LB Stock. As such, Liberty Media explains, the Plan was frozen to additional investments in LB Stock as of the Spin-Off Date. Plan participants holding the LB Stock received in the Spin-Off in their accounts could then elect to sell or transfer out the LB Stock held in their Plan accounts at any time.

    6. Liberty Media explains that TruePosition, a participating employer with respect to the Plan prior to the Spin-Off, had considered establishing a new 401(k) plan for its employees that would be available for those employees immediately upon the Spin-Off. However, it was unable to do so within the ten-day timeframe prior to the Spin-Off Date. At the same time, TruePosition did not want its employees to be without a 401(k) plan to contribute to during this period. As such, Liberty Media allowed TruePosition to continue to participate in the Plan for the remainder of 2014. Liberty Media represents that TruePosition employees no longer participate in the Plan.

    The Rights Offering

    7. Liberty Media represents that, on December 10, 2014, Liberty Broadband initiated a rights offering (the Rights Offering) and issued subscription rights (individually, a Right, and collectively, the Rights) to purchase shares of LB Series C Stock to holders of the LB Stock, including the Plan, as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on December 4, 2014 (the Record Date). In a Form S-1 filed with the SEC on October 16, 2014, Liberty Broadband stated that it conducted the Rights Offering to raise capital for general corporate purposes. According to Liberty Media, under the terms of the Rights Offering, one Right was issued for every five shares of LB Stock held by the shareholder, including the Plan. Once received, each Right gave the respective shareholder the right to purchase one share of LB Series C Stock at a 20% discount to the 20-trading day volume weighted average price of the LB Series C Stock following the Spin-Off Date.

    According to Liberty Media, the Rights could be exercised or sold during the period of the Rights Offering, which ran from December 11, 2014 through January 9, 2015. Liberty Media notes that the Rights began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market (the NASDAQ) on a when-issued basis on December 10, 2014, and began fully trading on December 11, 2014, under the symbol “LBRKR.” During the Rights Offering period, the Rights traded at an average daily volume of 254,232 Rights/day and at a total cumulative trading volume of 5,338,866 Rights.

    According to Liberty Media, the Plan held 287,143.473 shares of LB Stock as of the Record Date. As such, Liberty Media states that the Plan received 57,428.641 Rights in connection with the Rights Offering.

    8. Liberty Media represents that, because of the restrictions placed on the Plan's ability to invest in LB Stock described above, Plan participants could not exercise Rights for their Plan accounts. Liberty Media states that, because the exercise of the Rights received in the Rights Offering was not permitted, the Committee directed the Trustee to sell the Rights received by the Plan, in accordance with its instructions.

    9. According to Liberty Media, the Trustee received the Rights on behalf of the Plan on December 15, 2014. Liberty Media represents that the Plan established a separate temporary investment fund to receive and hold the Rights (the Rights Fund) pending the disposition of the Rights by the Trustee. Liberty Media notes that the Trustee acted as custodian of the Rights held in the Rights Fund. Liberty Media explains that the Rights were credited to participants' Plan accounts based on their respective holdings of LB Stock.

    10. Liberty Media represents that the Trustee sold the Plan's Rights on the NASDAQ at market value on December 17, 2014, and the settlement from the sale of such Rights was completed by December 22, 2014. Liberty Media explains that, during the period that the Rights were traded on the NASDAQ from December 10, 2014 through January 9, 2015), the Rights sold for prices between $6.64 and $11.82 per Right. Liberty Media represents that the Plan received an average price of $7.6323 per Right for the sale of the Rights on the NASDAQ, for a total of $438,312.65.

    11. According to Liberty Media, the Committee did not exercise any discretion with respect to the acquisition and holding of the Rights, because the Rights were unilaterally issued by Liberty Broadband to all holders of the LB Stock, including the Plan, without any action on the part of any stockholder. Liberty Media explains that, because the exercise of the Rights to purchase additional LB Series C Stock was not permitted, due to the fact that new investments in the Shares were not permitted under the Plan, the Committee directed the Trustee to sell the Rights.

    12. Liberty Media represents that the Plan did not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the acquisition and holding of the Rights. Liberty Media notes that the Plan paid a commission rate of 2.9 cents per Right to Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC (Fidelity Brokerage), an affiliate of Fidelity, the Trustee, in connection with the sale of the Rights.9 Liberty Media explains that the commissions were paid out of the Plan's forfeiture accounts.

    9 Liberty Media explains that the parties are relying on the exemptive relief provided by section 408(b)(2) of the Act, relating to the provision by a party-in-interest to the Plan, and the payment therefor, of services necessary for the administration of the Plan, if no more than reasonable compensation is paid for such service. Liberty Media represents that the Plan Committee determined that Fidelity Brokerage was an appropriate provider of brokerage services in connection with the sale of the Rights on the NASDAQ and that the fees charged by Fidelity Brokerage for those services was reasonable. The Department is expressing no opinion herein as to whether the provision of services by Fidelity Brokerage to the Plan and the payment of commissions by the Plan to Fidelity Brokerage satisfy the requirements of section 408(b)(2) of the Act.

    Exemptive Relief Requested

    13. Liberty Media represents that the acquisition and holding by the Plan of the Rights constitute prohibited transactions in violation of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Section 406(a)(1)(E) of the Act provides that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause the plan to engage in a transaction if he or she knows or should know that such transaction constitutes the acquisition, on behalf of the plan, of any employer security in violation of section 407(a) of the Act. Section 406(a)(2) of the Act provides that a fiduciary of a plan shall not permit the plan to hold any employer security if he or she knows or should know that holding such security violates section 407(a) of the Act. Under section 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act, a plan may not acquire or hold any “employer security” which is not a “qualifying employer security.” Under section 407(d)(1) of the Act, “employer securities” are defined, in relevant part, as securities issued by an employer of employees covered by the plan, or by an affiliate of such employer. Section 407(d)(5) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “qualifying employer securities” are stock or marketable debt obligations.

    Liberty Media states that the Rights constitute “employer securities” under section 407(d)(1) of the Act because the employees of TruePosition, an affiliate of Liberty Broadband, participated in the Plan at the time of the Rights Offering. Therefore, because the Rights were issued by an affiliate of TruePosition, which was an employer of employees covered by the Plan at the time of the Rights Offering, the Rights constituted employer securities. Liberty Media states further that, since the Rights did not constitute stock or marketable debt securities, they were not qualifying employer securities. Therefore, Liberty Media requests a retroactive exemption from sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act for the acquisition and holding of the Rights in connection with the Rights Offering.

    14. As explained above, Liberty Media represents that the acquisition of the Rights has been completed. Liberty Media represents that no Plan accounts currently hold any Rights. Liberty Media notes that the Rights were sold by the Plan on the NASDAQ and that no Rights were exercised while in the Plan accounts. Liberty Media seeks retroactive relief effective from December 15, 2014, the date that the Plan received the Rights, until December 17, 2014, the date the Rights were sold on the NASDAQ.

    Statutory Findings

    15. Liberty Media represents that the proposed exemption is administratively feasible. Liberty Media represents that all shareholders, including the Plan, were treated in a like manner with respect to the acquisition and holding of the Rights. Furthermore, Liberty Media notes that the Rights were distributed to all shareholders of LB Stock, and upon receipt of the Rights by the Plan, they were placed in the Rights Fund. Thereafter, because the Plan was not permitted to acquire additional LB Stock, the Committee directed the Trustee to sell all of the Rights on the NASDAQ in accordance with their instructions. As such, Liberty Media represents that there is no reason for any continuing Departmental oversight.

    16. Liberty Media represents that an exemption for the Plan's acquisition and holding of the Rights through its participation in the Rights Offering is in the interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries because it allowed participants and beneficiaries to benefit from the sale of the Rights at no cost to the Plan, with the exception of a commission paid in connection with the sale of the Rights.

    In this regard, the Rights were credited to participants' Plan accounts based on their respective holdings of Shares, and the proportionate cash proceeds from the sale of the Rights were placed in each respective account.

    17. Liberty Media represents that an exemption for the acquisition and holding of the Rights in the Rights Offering is protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries because the Rights were sold on the NASDAQ by the Trustee for their market value, in arms'-length transactions between unrelated parties. Furthermore, Liberty Media represents that the Plan did not pay any fees or commissions with respect to the acquisition or holding of the Rights, and it did not pay any commissions to any affiliate of Liberty Broadband, Liberty Media, or TruePosition with respect to the sale of the Rights.

    Summary

    18. In summary, Liberty Media represents that the proposed exemption satisfies the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act for the reasons stated above and for the following reasons:

    a. The Plan's acquisition of the Rights resulted solely from an independent corporate act of Liberty Broadband;

    b. All holders of LB Stock, including the Plan, were issued the same proportionate number of Rights based on the number of shares of LB Stock held by each such shareholder;

    c. For purposes of the Rights Offering, all holders of LB stock, including the Plan, were treated in a like manner;

    d. The acquisition of the Rights by the Plan was made in a manner that was consistent with provisions of the Plan for the individually-directed investment of participant accounts;

    e. The Committee directed the Plan trustee to sell the Rights on the NASDAQ, in accordance with Plan provisions that precluded the Plan from acquiring additional shares of LB Stock;

    f. The Committee did not exercise any discretion with respect to the acquisition and holding of the Rights; and

    g. The Plan did not pay any fees or commissions in connection with the acquisition or holding of the Rights, and did not pay any commissions to Liberty Broadband, Liberty Media, TruePosition, or any affiliates of the foregoing in connection with the sale of the Rights.

    Notice to Interested Persons

    Notice of the proposed exemption will be given to all Interested Persons within 7 days of the publication of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register, by first class U.S. mail to the last known address of all such individuals. Such notice will contain a copy of the notice of proposed exemption, as published in the Federal Register, and a supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(a)(2). The supplemental statement will inform interested persons of their right to comment on the pending exemption. Written comments are due within 37 days of the publication of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register.

    All comments will be made available to the public.

    Warning: If you submit a comment, EBSA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, but DO NOT submit information that you consider to be confidential, or otherwise protected (such as Social Security number or an unlisted phone number) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Ness of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8561. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Baxter International Inc. (Baxter or the Applicant) Located in Deerfield, IL [Application No. D-11866] Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, (ERISA) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).

    Section I. Transaction

    If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) and sections 406(b)(1) and (2) of ERISA and sections 4975(c)(1)(A), (D), and (E) of the Code shall not apply to the contribution of publicly traded common stock of Baxalta (the Contributed Stock) by Baxter (the Contribution) to the Baxter International Inc. and Subsidiaries Pension Plan (the Plan), provided:

    (a) Fiduciary Counselors Inc. (the Independent Fiduciary) will represent the interests of the Plan, the participants, and beneficiaries with respect to the Contribution, including but not limited to, taking the following actions:

    (i) Determining whether the Contribution is in the interests of the Plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and is protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan;

    (ii) Determining whether and on what terms the Contribution should be accepted by the Plan;

    (iii) If the Contribution is accepted by the Plan, establishing and administering the process (subject to such modifications as the Independent Fiduciary may make from time to time) for liquidating the Contributed Stock, as is prudent under the circumstances;

    (iv) Determining the fair market value of the Contributed Stock as of the date of the Contribution;

    (v) Monitoring the Contribution and holding of Contributed Stock on a continuing basis and taking all appropriate actions necessary to safeguard the interests of the Plan; and

    (vi) If the Contribution is accepted by the Plan, voting proxies and responding to tender offers with respect to the Contributed Stock held by the Plan;

    (b) Solely for purposes of determining the Plan's minimum funding requirements (as determined under section 412 of the Code), adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP) (as determined under Treas. Reg. section 1.436-1(j)(1)), and funding target attainment percentage (as determined under section 430(d)(2) of the Code), the Plan's actuary (the Actuary) will not count as a contribution to the Plan any shares of Contributed Stock that have not been liquidated;

    (c) For purposes of determining the amount of any Contribution, the Contributed Stock shall be deemed contributed only at the time it is sold, equal to the lesser of: (1) The proceeds from the sale of such Contributed Stock; or (2) the value of such Contributed Stock on the date of the initial contribution as determined by the Independent Fiduciary;

    (d) The Contributed Stock represents no more than 20% of the fair market value of the total assets of the Plan at the time it is contributed to the Plan;

    (e) The Plan pays no commissions, costs, or other expenses in connection with the Contribution, holding, or subsequent sale of the Contributed Stock, and any such expenses paid by Baxter will not be treated as a contribution to the Plan;

    (f) Baxter makes cash contributions to the Plan to the extent that the cumulative proceeds from the sale of the Contributed Stock at each contribution due date (determined under section 303(j) of ERISA) are less than the cumulative cash contributions Baxter would have been required to make to the Plan, in the absence of the Contribution. Such cash contributions shall be made until all of the Contributed Stock is sold by the Plan; and

    (g) Baxter contributes to the Plan cash amounts needed for the Plan to attain an AFTAP (determined under Treas. Reg. section 1.436-1(j)(1)) of at least 80% as of the first day of each plan year during which the Plan holds Contributed Stock, as determined by the Actuary, without taking into account any unsold Contributed Stock as of April 1 of the plan year.

    Summary of Facts and Representations 10

    10 The Summary of Facts and Representations is based on the Applicant's representations and does not reflect the views of the Department, unless indicated otherwise.

    Background

    1. Baxter International, Inc. (Baxter or the Applicant) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, and does business throughout the world. Baxter was originally founded in 1931 as a manufacturer of intravenous (IV) solutions. Baxter's shares are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (the NYSE). Prior to the spin-off transaction described below, Baxter had approximately 60,000 employees worldwide and two principal lines of business with manufacturing and research facilities in the United States, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The first business line involved the manufacture and sale of medical devices, primarily products used in the delivery of fluids and drugs to patients (the Medical Products Business). The second business line involved the manufacture and sale of products derived from blood plasma and other natural substances and used to treat bleeding disorders, immune deficiencies, and other conditions (the BioScience Business). In 2014, Baxter had net income of approximately $2.5 billion on net sales of approximately $16.7 billion, and as of December 31, 2014, its total shareholder's equity was in excess of $8.1 billion. Additionally, its debt is rated “investment grade” by the Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch rating services.

    2. Baxalta Incorporated (Baxalta) is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated on September 8, 2014, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Baxter. Baxter transferred the BioScience Business to Baxalta as part of the spin-off described below. For 2014, Baxalta's net sales were approximately $6.109 billion, and its net operating income was approximately $1.114 billion. As of March 31, 2015, Baxalta had total assets of approximately $11 billion. Baxalta has approximately 16,000 employees worldwide, with plants located in six countries.

    3. The Plan is a defined benefit pension plan qualified under section 401(a) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) and sponsored and maintained by Baxter for the benefit of its employees located within the United States. As of May 1, 2015, there were a total of 30,836 participants and beneficiaries in the Plan. Baxter froze the Plan to new participants on December 31, 2006, and no person hired or re-hired, or transferred to a Baxter company in the United States after such date is eligible to participate in the Plan. Persons who were participants in the Plan on December 31, 2006, continue to accrue benefits under the Plan, except that Baxter gave participants who had fewer than five years of vesting service on December 31, 2006, an election between: (1) Continuing to accrue benefits under the Plan; or (2) receiving enhanced contributions to Baxter's defined contribution plan (i.e., its 401(k) plan).

    4. The Plan is funded by the Baxter International Inc. and Subsidiaries Pension Trust (the Trust), which was established pursuant to a trust agreement originally entered into July 1, 1986. The Plan's assets are invested under the direction of independent investment advisers, who are selected and overseen by Baxter's Investment Committee. As of June 30, 2015, the Plan had approximately $3.0 billion in total assets.11

    11 The number of participants and beneficiaries and the total Plan assets noted in this proposal represent totals after giving effect to the spin-off described below.

    5. Baxter's Administrative Committee is a committee comprised of employees of Baxter, which is appointed by the Compensation Committee of Baxter's Board of Directors. The Administrative Committee is responsible for the administration of Baxter's employee benefit plans, including the Plan, and is the designated “plan administrator” of the Plan for purposes of ERISA. The Investment Committee is also a committee comprised of employees of Baxter, but is appointed by Baxter's Board of Directors. The Investment Committee is responsible for directing the investment of the Plan's assets, including the selection and oversight of all investment managers and advisers for the Plan. The members of both the Administrative Committee and Investment Committee (together, the Committees) are named fiduciaries for purposes of ERISA with respect to the Plan. Both committees approved the proposed transaction of Contributed Stock and retention of Fiduciary Counselors, Inc. to act as the independent fiduciary for the Plan (the Independent Fiduciary).

    6. The Plan's independent actuary, Towers Watson (the Actuary), determined that the Plan's adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP) as of January 1, 2014, was 104.3%, and the AFTAP as of January 1, 2015, was 107.16%. Baxter elected to apply its credit balance under the Plan to satisfy its minimum funding obligation for the 2014 plan year and was not required to make any cash contribution for that year. Baxter's minimum contribution obligation for 2015 was reduced to zero by the application of funding balances from prior years, and accordingly Baxter was not obligated to make (and did not make) any 2015 contribution. Under current projections, and excluding the proposed Contribution, Baxter states that it will not be required to make any cash contributions to the Plan until the 2019 plan year.

    The Spin-Off

    7. Baxter distributed approximately 80.5 percent of the common stock of Baxalta (the Baxalta Stock) to the shareholders of Baxter as a stock dividend (the Spin-Off) on July 1, 2015 (the Spin-Off Date). Each shareholder of Baxter received one share of Baxalta Stock for each share of Baxter stock owned on the record date for the Spin-Off. Furthermore, pursuant to a Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated June 30, 2015, between Baxter and Baxalta, Baxter transferred to Baxalta all of the assets that made up the BioScience Business, and Baxalta assumed the liabilities relating to the BioScience Business.

    8. In connection with the Spin-Off, effective May 1, 2015, Baxalta established the Baxalata Incorporated and Subsidiaries Pension Plan (the Baxalta Plan), and the accrued benefits of all active participants in the Plan whose employment was transferred to Baxalta pursuant to the spin-off were transferred to the Baxalta Plan. The benefits of all terminated and retired participants were retained by the Plan, regardless of whether the participant was employed in the Medical Products Business or the BioScience Business.

    9. In connection with the Spin-Off, but prior to the Spin-Off Date, Baxter caused a registration of the Baxalta Stock to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and caused the Baxalta Stock to be listed on the NYSE, so that immediately following the Spin-Off, Baxalta became a publicly traded stock, freely tradable on the NYSE. Baxter received a private letter ruling (the Private Letter Ruling) from the Internal Revenue Service covering certain federal income tax consequences of the Spin-Off. According to the Applicant, the Private Letter Ruling provides that Baxter's use of the Baxalta Stock retained by Baxter (the Retained Stock) to satisfy such debts and obligations, including the proposed contribution of a portion of the Retained Stock to the Plan, will not result in the recognition by Baxter of taxable income, provided that the Retained Stock is used for such purpose within eighteen months following the Spin-Off Date.

    The Contribution

    10. Baxter states that the total value of all outstanding shares of Baxalta Stock (including the Retained Stock) as of July 2015 was approximately $20.3 billion, and the total value of the Retained Stock was approximately $4.0 billion, based upon a value of $30 per share. On the Spin-Off Date, the Retained Stock constituted approximately 19.5 percent of the total shares of Baxalta Stock. Baxter proposes to make an in-kind contribution (i.e., a contribution other than cash) to the Plan of a portion of the Retained Stock (the Contributed Stock). Baxter represents that the Contributed Stock will have a market value, after any applicable liquidity discount, of not more than $750 million. The Applicant states further that based upon an assumed value of $30 per share, the number of shares of Contributed Stock will not be more than 25 million, which would represent approximately 18.95 percent of the Retained Stock and 4.4 percent of the total number of outstanding shares of Baxalta Stock (including the shares originally distributed as part of the Spin-Off and the Contributed Stock, but not the remaining shares of Retained Stock). The Applicant notes that, however, in no event will the value of the Contributed Stock exceed 20 percent of the total value of the Plan's assets immediately after Baxter contributes the Contributed Shares (the Contribution).

    11. The Applicant represents that the Private Letter Ruling from the IRS specifically sanctions the contribution of the Contributed Stock on a tax-free basis, as long as the Contribution is completed within 18 months after the Spin-Off Date. As a result of the Private Letter Ruling, Baxter would save approximately $260 million in taxes if the Contributed Stock is contributed to the Plan. Baxter intends to pass this tax savings to the Plan in order to fund future benefits. Thus, Baxter states that an exemption for the in-kind contribution of the Contributed Stock will increase the assets available to the Plan by approximately $262.5 million.

    12. Baxter states that the Baxalta Stock is listed on the NYSE, so that the Plan will be able to sell shares in open market transactions on the NYSE. Furthermore, according to Baxter, the shares of Contributed Stock will be considered “restricted shares” so that they can only be sold by the Plan in accordance with Rule 144 of the Securities and Exchange Commission.12 However Baxter states that Rule 144's limitation on the maximum number of shares that may be sold by an affiliate within any three month period will not apply to the Plan. The Rule 144 requirement that the Plan hold the Contributed Stock for at least six months will apply, but Baxter expects to be able to consider its own holding time of the shares towards the Plan's six-month period, which was satisfied as of November 10, 2015. The Plan, however, would not be able to sell all of the Contributed Stock at one time without potentially depressing the market. Accordingly, the Independent Fiduciary has been tasked with selling the Contributed Stock on behalf of the Plan as quickly as is prudent and consistent with applicable laws.

    12 See 17 CFR 230.144.

    Reasons the Proposed Transaction is Prohibited Under ERISA and the Code

    13. Baxter represents that it is the employer—or the ultimate shareholder of the employer—of all of the employees covered by the Plan, and therefore a “party in interest” with respect to the Plan as defined in section 3(14)(C) and (E) of ERISA.13 Section 406(a)(1)(A) of ERISA provides that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between the plan and a party in interest. The Applicant notes that in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., 508 US 152 (1993), the United States Supreme Court held that a contribution of property to a plan, in satisfaction of the employer's minimum funding obligation, was a “sale or exchange” for purposes of section 406(a)(1)(A) of ERISA. The Applicant also notes that in Interpretive Bulletin 94-3(b), 29 CFR 2509.94-3(b), the Department concluded that any contribution of property to a defined benefit pension plan is a sale or exchange for purposes of section 406(a)(1)(A) of ERISA, even if the contribution is not used to satisfy a minimum funding obligation. Thus, the Applicant states that the Contribution will constitute a sale or exchange of the Contributed Stock between the Plan and a party in interest, and is prohibited under section 406(a)(1)(A) of ERISA.

    13 For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to Title I of ERISA, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.

    14. In addition, section 406(a)(1)(D) of ERISA provides that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of a party in interest, of any assets of the plan. The Applicant states that the use of the Contributed Stock to potentially reduce Baxter's funding obligation could be considered a use of the Contributed Stock after it has become a plan asset for Baxter's benefit.

    15. Section 406(b)(1) of ERISA provides that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not deal with the assets of the plan in his own interest or for his own account, and section 406(b)(2) of ERISA provides that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not in his individual or in any other capacity act in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party (or represent a party) whose interests are adverse to the interests of the plan or the interests of its participants or beneficiaries. By causing the Plan to receive the Contribution, the members of the Committees and Baxter could be viewed as either dealing with the Plan's assets in their own interest or for their own account in violation of section 406(b)(1) of ERISA or as acting on behalf of Baxter in the Contribution, where Baxter's interests are adverse to those of the Plan, in violation of section 406(b)(2) of ERISA.

    Independent Fiduciary

    16. As described in more detail below, the Committees have retained Fiduciary Counselors Inc., the Independent Fiduciary, to represent the interests of the Plan with respect to the proposed transaction pursuant to an agreement dated May 11, 2015 (and which was subsequently updated on January 22, 2016). The Independent Fiduciary is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that primarily acts as an independent fiduciary for employee benefit plans. Furthermore, Fiduciary Counselors states that it has served as an independent fiduciary for employee benefit plans since 2001. Fiduciary Counselors represents that they are highly qualified to serve as independent fiduciary in connection with the proposed transactions. The Independent Fiduciary was selected by the Committees based upon proposals submitted by the Independent Fiduciary and other candidates.

    17. The Independent Fiduciary states that it is not related to or affiliated with any of the other parties to the transaction, and has not previously been retained to perform services with respect to the Plan or any other employee benefit plan sponsored by Baxter. Fiduciary Counselors represents and warrants that it is independent of and unrelated to Baxter and Baxalta, and that: (a) It does not directly or indirectly control, is not controlled by, and is not under common control with Baxter or Baxalta; (b) neither it, nor any of its officers, directors, or employees is an officer, director, partner, or employee of Baxter or Baxalta (or is a relative of such persons); (c) it does not directly or indirectly receive any consideration for its own account in connection with the Contribution or its services described hereunder, except that it may receive compensation from Baxter for performing the services described in this proposed exemption as long as the amount of such payment is not contingent upon or in any way affected by Fiduciary Counselor's ultimate decision; and (d) the percentage of Fiduciary Counselor's revenue that is derived from the Plan, any party in interest, or its affiliates involved in the proposed transactions is less than 5% of its previous year's annual revenue from all sources. Fiduciary Counselors represents that it understands and acknowledges its duties and responsibilities under ERISA in acting as an independent fiduciary on behalf of the Plan in connection with the covered transactions.

    18. Fiduciary Counselors provided a preliminary report dated July 22, 2015 (the IF Report), that analyzed the proposed Contribution and described its responsibilities in connection therewith. In connection with the IF Report, the Independent Fiduciary considered the following key elements:

    (a) Whether the Plan's Investment Policy would permit the Plan to hold the Contributed Stock as an acceptable investment. According to the IF Report, the Investment Committee approved the acceptance of the Contributed Stock as an employer contribution in the Plan, to be subsequently liquidated for cash. Therefore, the Independent Fiduciary determined that the Contributed Stock is an acceptable investment for the Plan and would be liquidated as soon as practicable and consistent with ERISA.

    (b) Whether any liquidity discount would be applicable to the valuation of the Contributed Stock. The Independent Fiduciary retained Murray, Devine & Co., Inc. (Murray Devine) as an independent valuation adviser in order to assist with this determination.14 The IF Report provides that the Contributed Stock could be liquidated in as few as 42 trading days, depending on the particular circumstances, assuming (i) Baxter contributes 25 million shares of Baxalta stock to the Plan, (ii) the Contributed Stock trading volumes remain around 6 million shares per day, and (iii) Fiduciary Counselors limits the disposition of Contributed Stock to 10% or less of daily volume (provided that such limitation is appropriate and consistent with ERISA). Therefore, Fiduciary Counselors expects the liquidity discount computed by Murray Devine will be very small.

    14 According to Fiduciary Counselors, Murray Devine is well qualified for this engagement in that it is a nationally recognized valuation advisory firm and has provided valuation advisory services to private equity, corporate, venture capital, and commercial banking institutions since its inception in 1989. Fiduciary Counselors represents that it has utilized their services in other engagements. Furthermore, Murray Devine represents and warrants that it is independent of and unrelated to Baxter, Baxalta, and Fiduciary Counselors, and that:

    • It does not directly or indirectly control, is not controlled by, and is not under common control with Baxter, Baxalta, or Fiduciary Counselors;

    • Murray Devine, nor any of its officers, directors, or employees is an officer, director, partner or employee of Baxter, Baxalta or Fiduciary Counselors (or is a relative of such persons);

    • The amount of compensation received by Murray Devine is not contingent of the valuation; and

    The percentage of Murray Devine's revenue that is derived from any party in interest or its affiliates involved in the stock contribution is less than 5% of its previous year's annual revenue from all sources.

    (c) What impact, if any, the Contribution will have on the diversification of the Plan's portfolio. The IF Report provides that, while the Plan's acceptance of the Contributed Stock will skew the Plan's asset class allocations above the targeted amount for Large Cap stock of 24% of plan assets, this will be a temporary deviation and Fiduciary Counselors expects the allocation will return to pre-Contribution levels as the Contributed Stock is sold. Thus, the Independent Fiduciary does not believe that the Contribution will cause any significant disruption to the Plan's asset allocation.

    (d) Whether the Plan will have sufficient liquidity to meet benefits payments. The IF Report indicates that, as of June 30, 2015, the Plan held approximately $120 million of its assets in cash or cash equivalents. According to the IF Report, since the Plan does not currently have a minimum funding obligation, its assets will increase by investment income, which is currently estimated to yield a 7.25% annual rate of return or approximately $218 million. Further, the largest Plan outflow is benefit payments of $160 million a year. Because the majority of the Plan's assets are in investments that can be liquidated on a daily basis, and the Contributed Stock will be converted to cash as it is liquidated, the IF Report concludes that the Plan will have sufficient liquidity to meet its needs over the time period while the Contributed Stock is held by the Plan.

    (e) Whether the Contribution will sufficiently improve the Plan's funded status. According to the IF Report, the Contribution will increase the funded status of the plan by between $600 million and $750 million, thereby significantly improving the funded status of the Plan.15 The IF Report also notes that the Actuary estimated no minimum funding requirement for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 plan years, indicating that the Plan will continue to be well-funded.

    15 For purposes of the IF Report, Fiduciary Counselors estimated a range for the value of the Contribution that takes into account the requirement that, for purposes of determining minimum funding, the amount of the Contribution will be deemed to be the lesser of the proceeds from the sale of the Contributed Stock or the value of the Contributed Stock at the time it is contributed to the Plan.

    (f) The ability of the Contributed Stock to be readily liquidated given its publicly traded nature. The IF Report notes that the Contributed Stock is publicly traded, can be partially sold daily at market prices, and can be completely liquidated in as few as 42 trading days (nine weeks) at current trading volume without depressing the stock price,16 the Contributed Stock can be readily converted into cash and is considered a highly liquid investment.

    16 The IF Report indicates that Baxalta anticipates receiving an opinion from its securities counsel that the Plan will not be considered an “affiliate” of Baxalta within the meaning of Rule 144. Accordingly, the limitation on the maximum number of shares that may be sold by an affiliate within any three month period (the Volume Limitation) will not apply to the sales of Contributed Stock by the Plan.

    19. The IF Report also describes the Independent Fiduciary's other responsibilities in connection with the Contribution. In this regard, the Independent Fiduciary will monitor the covered transactions on a continuing basis and take all appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan to ensure that the transactions remain in the interests of the Plan, and, if not, take appropriate action available under the circumstances. Additionally, the Independent Fiduciary will determine whether and on what terms the Contribution should be accepted by the Plan, and if the Contribution is accepted by the Plan, vote proxies and respond to tender offers with respect to the Contributed Stock held by the Plan.

    20. After Baxter makes the Contribution, the Independent Fiduciary will act as an investment manager to establish and administer the process (subject to such modifications as the Independent Fiduciary may make from time to time) for liquidation of the Contributed Stock as quickly as is prudent and consistent with market conditions and applicable laws. If, following the acceptance of the Contributed Stock and in the course of liquidating such stock, the Independent Fiduciary determines that continuing the liquidation of the Contributed Stock is imprudent, and is likely to remain imprudent for an indefinite period of time, the Independent Fiduciary shall notify the Committees, who shall arrange for the remaining Contributed Stock to be transferred to the portfolio of one or more of the Plan's independent investment managers, and the agreement with the Independent Fiduciary shall terminate.

    Statutory Findings—Administratively Feasible

    21. The Applicant represents that a proposed exemption is administratively feasible because the Independent Fiduciary, rather than the Department, will monitor the covered transactions for compliance with the terms of the proposed exemption and enforce the rights of the Plan in connection with the covered transactions. Furthermore, Baxter's proposed Contribution will be a single event, and the Contributed Stock will be sold by the Plan over a relatively short time period. Baxter states further that since Baxalta Stock is publicly traded and readily saleable, the sales will occur through open market transactions on a nationally recognized exchange, obviating the need for further monitoring.

    Statutory Findings—In the Interest of the Plan and Its Participants and Beneficiaries

    22. The Applicant states that a proposed exemption is in the interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries. According to Baxter, the Contributed Stock will increase the assets of the Plan by as much as 20 percent, which will significantly improve the funded status of the Plan. Since the Contributed Stock will only be counted towards Baxter's minimum funding requirement as the shares are sold by the Plan and converted into more diversified investments, Baxter will still be obligated to make its minimum required contributions as if the Contributed Stock had never been received until and unless the shares are sold. Thus, the Applicant states that the Plan gets the benefit of the additional value of the Contributed Stock without giving up the benefit of minimum required cash contributions from Baxter.

    Statutory Findings—Protective of the Rights of the Plan and Its Participants and Beneficiaries

    23. The Applicant states that the requested exemption is protective of the rights of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries. The Applicant reiterates that the principal protection for participants and beneficiaries is the fact that the Independent Fiduciary, acting solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries, will review the transaction to ensure that it is fair to the participants and beneficiaries, will monitor compliance with the exemption, and will oversee the Plan's sale of the Contributed Stock.

    24. Additionally, the requested exemption would require Baxter to make cash contributions to the Plan to the extent that the cumulative proceeds from the sale of the Contributed Stock at each contribution due date (determined under section 303(j) of ERISA) are less than the cumulative cash contributions Baxter would have been required to make to the Plan in the absence of the Contribution. Such cash contributions must be made until all of the shares of Contributed Stock are sold. These conditions should mitigate the risk of the Plan holding too much of its assets in one security. Solely for purposes of determining the Plan's minimum funding requirements, AFTAP, and funding target attainment percentage, the Actuary will not count as a contribution to the Plan any Contributed Stock that has not been sold. The Applicant states that this protection is intended to ensure that Baxter does not receive a credit for minimum funding purposes under section 302 of ERISA for the Contributed Stock prior to the time the stock is sold, when it could still decrease in value. If the Independent Fiduciary determines that the Plan should retain shares of the Contributed Stock on an indefinite basis, such a decision will be communicated to the Committees.

    25. The Applicant also states that Baxter must contribute to the Plan such cash amounts as are needed for the Plan to maintain an AFTAP of at least 80 percent as of the first day of each plan year during which the Plan holds shares of the Contributed Stock, as determined by the Actuary, without taking into account any Contributed Stock that has not been sold by April 1 of the plan year.

    26. The Applicant also states that the value of the Contributed Stock cannot be more than 20 percent of the fair market value of the total assets of the Plan at the time Baxter makes the Contribution to the Plan. Additionally, the Plan may not pay any commissions, costs, or other expenses in connection with the contribution, holding, or subsequent sale of the Contributed Stock, and any such expenses paid by Baxter must not be treated as a contribution to the Plan.

    Summary

    27. In summary, the Applicant represents that the proposed Contribution will meet the criteria of section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code for the above and the following reasons:

    (a) The Independent Fiduciary will represent the interests of the Plan, the participants, and beneficiaries with respect to the Contribution;

    (b) Solely for purposes of determining the Plan's minimum funding requirements, AFTAP, and funding target attainment percentage, the Actuary will not count as a contribution to the Plan any shares of Contributed Stock that have not been liquidated;

    (c) For purposes of determining the amount of any Contribution, the Contributed Stock shall be deemed contributed only at the time it is sold, equal to the lesser of: (1) The proceeds from the sale of such Contributed Stock; or (2) the value of such Contributed Stock on the date of the initial contribution as determined by the Independent Fiduciary;

    (d) The Contributed Stock represents no more than 20% of the fair market value of the total assets of the Plan at the time it is contributed to the Plan;

    (e) The Plan pays no commissions, costs, or other expenses in connection with the Contribution, holding, or subsequent sale of the Contributed Stock, and any such expenses paid by Baxter will not be treated as a contribution to the Plan;

    (f) Baxter makes cash contributions to the Plan to the extent that the cumulative proceeds from the sale of the Contributed Stock at each contribution due date are less than the cumulative cash contributions Baxter would have been required to make to the Plan, in the absence of the Contribution. Such cash contributions shall be made until all of the Contributed Stock is sold by the Plan; and

    (g) Baxter contributes to the Plan cash amounts needed for the Plan to attain an AFTAP of at least 80% as of the first day of each plan year during which the Plan holds Contributed Stock, as determined by the Actuary, without taking into account any unsold Contributed Stock as of April 1 of the plan year.

    Notice to Interested Persons

    Baxter will provide notice of the proposed exemption to all persons with accrued benefits under the Plan, all beneficiaries of deceased participants, and all alternate payees pursuant to qualified domestic relations orders within five (5) calendar days of publication of the proposed exemption in the Federal Register. For all persons for whom disclosure by electronic media is permitted by 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c), notice will be posted on Baxter's internal Web site and such persons will be notified of the posting by email in accordance with 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c). Baxter will provide the notice to all other interested persons via first-class mail. In addition to the proposed exemption, as published in the Federal Register, Baxter will provide interested persons with a supplemental statement, as required, under 29 CFR 2570.43(a)(2). The supplemental statement will inform such employees of their right to comment on and to request a hearing with respect to this proposed exemption. The Department must receive all written comments and/or requests for a hearing within 35 days of the publication of this proposed exemption in the Federal Register. The Department will make all comments available to the public.

    Warning: If you submit a comment, EBSA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, but DO NOT submit information that you consider to be confidential, or otherwise protected (such as Social Security number or an unlisted phone number) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Erin S. Hesse of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8546 (This is not a toll-free number.)

    General Information

    The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

    (1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

    (2) Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;

    (3) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

    (4) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application are true and complete, and that each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of April, 2016. Lyssa E. Hall, Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09946 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Information Security Oversight Office [NARA-2016-029] National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, NARA announces the following committee meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be on June 6, 2016, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Gaylord Opryland Hotel, 2800 Opryland Drive, Delta Ballroom D, Nashville, TN 37214.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Tringali, Program Analyst, by mail at ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at (202) 357-5335, or by email at [email protected] Contact ISOO at [email protected] and the NISPPAC at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Wednesday, June 1, 2016.

    Dated: April 20, 2016. Patrice Little Murray, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09991 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Office of Small Credit Unions (OSCUI) Grant Program Access For Credit Unions Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(D), and (7)(I), 1766, 1782, 1784, 1785 and 1786; 12 CFR 705.

    AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Funding Opportunity.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is issuing a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to invite eligible credit unions to submit applications for participation in the OSCUI Grant Program (a.k.a. Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF)), subject to funding availability. The OSCUI Grant Program serves as a source of financial support, in the form of technical assistance grants, for credit unions serving predominantly low-income members. It also serves as a source of funding to help low-income designated credit unions (LICUs) respond to emergencies arising in their communities.

    Table of Contents A. Program Description B. Federal Award Information C. Eligibility Information D. Application and Submission Information E. Application Review Information F. Federal Award Administration G. Federal Awarding Agency A. Program Description

    The purpose of the OSCUI Grant Program is to assist low-income designated credit unions (LICU) in providing basic financial services to their low-income members to stimulate economic activities in their communities. Through the OSCUI Grant Program, NCUA provides financial support in the form of technical assistance grants to LICUs. These funds help improve and expand the availability of financial services to these members. The OSCUI Grant Program also serves as a source of funding to help LICUs respond to emergencies. The Grant Program consists of Congressional appropriations that are administered by OSCUI, an office of the NCUA.

    From June 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 NCUA will accept applications from credit unions for the 2016 grant round. This grant round will include initiatives for Capacity and Growth, Cyber Security, Staff Training, and Student Interns.

    Information about the OSCUI Grant Program, including more details regarding the 2016 grant round, other funding initiatives, amount of funds available, funding priorities, permissible uses of funds, funding limits, deadlines and other pertinent details, are periodically published in NCUA Letters to Credit Unions, in the OSCUI e-newsletter and on the NCUA Web site at https://www.ncua.gov/services/Pages/small-credit-union-learning-center/services/grants-loans.aspx.

    Permissible Uses of Funds: NCUA will consider requests for funds consistent with the purpose of the OSCUI Grant Program. 12 CFR 705.1. Per § 705.10 of the regulation permissible uses for the grant fund include: (i) Development of new products or services for members including new or expanded share draft or credit card programs; (ii) Partnership arrangements with community based service organizations or government agencies; (iii) Enhancement and support of credit union internal capacity to serve its members and better enable it to provide financial services to the community in which the credit union is located.

    NCUA will consider other proposed uses of funds that in its sole discretion it determines are consistent with the purpose of the OSCUI Grant Program, the requirements of the regulations, and this NOFO.

    Regulation: Part 705 of NCUA's regulations implements the OSCUI Grant and Loan Program. 12 CFR 705. A revised Part 705 was published on November 2, 2011. 76 FR 67583. Additional requirements are found at 12 CFR parts 701 and 741. Applicants should review these regulations in addition to this NOFO. Each capitalized term in this NOFO is more fully defined in the regulations and grant guidelines. For the purposes of this NOFO, an Applicant is a Qualifying Credit Union that submits a complete Application to NCUA under the OSCUI Grant Program.

    B. Federal Award Information

    OSCUI grants are made to LICUs that meet the requirements in the program regulation and this NOFO, subject to funds availability.

    Funds Availability: Congress appropriated $2 million to the OSCUI Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2016-2017. NCUA expects to award the entire amount appropriated under this NOFO. NCUA reserves the right to: (i) Award more or less than the amount appropriated; (ii) fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the applications submitted in response to this NOFO; and (iii) reallocate funds from the amount that is anticipated to be available under this NOFO to other programs, particularly if NCUA determines that the number of awards made under this NOFO is fewer than projected.

    C. Eligibility Information

    The regulations specify the requirements a credit union must meet in order to be eligible to apply for assistance under this NOFO. See 12 CFR part 705.

    1. Eligible Applicants: A credit union must have a Low-Income Credit Union (LICU) designation, or equivalent in the case of a Qualifying State-chartered Credit Union, in order to participate in the OSCUI Grant and Loan Program. Requirements for obtaining the designation are found at 12 CFR 701.34.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Form: The application and related documents can be found on NCUA's Web site at https://www.ncua.gov/services/Pages/small-credit-union-learning-center/services/grants-loans.aspx.

    2. Minimum Application Content: Each Applicant must complete and submit information regarding the applicant and requested funding. In addition, applicants will be required to certify applications prior to submission.

    (a) DUNS Number: Based on an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy directive effective October 31, 2003, credit unions must have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number issued by Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) in order to be eligible to receive funding from the OSCUI Grant Program. NCUA will not consider an Application that does not include a valid DUNS number. Such an Application will be deemed incomplete and will be declined. Information on how to obtain a DUNS number may be found on D&B's Web site at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform or by calling D&B, toll-free, at 1-866-705-5711.

    (b) Employer Identification Number: Each Application must include a valid and current Employer Identification Number (EIN) issued by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). NCUA will not consider an application that does not include a valid and current EIN. Such an Application will be deemed incomplete and will be declined. Information on how to obtain a EIN may be found on the IRS's Web site at www.irs.gov.

    (c) Submission of Application: Under this NOFO, Applications must be submitted online at http://www.cybergrants.com/ncua. An Applicant requesting a grant must complete an online grant application form which includes required responses. The required responses will address the proposed use of funds and how the credit union will assess the impact of the funding.

    3. Submission Dates and Times: The application open period is from June 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2016 for different grant initiatives. For each initiative funds may be exhausted prior to the deadlines, at which time the programs/funds will no longer be available.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: Not Applicable.

    5. Other Submission Requirments: Under this NOFO, Applications must be submitted online at http://www.cybergrants.com/ncua.

    a. Disclosure Agreement b. Mandatory Clauses E. Application Review Information

    1. Review and Selection Process:

    (a) Eligibility and Completeness Review: NCUA will review each Application to determine whether it is complete and that the Applicant meets the eligibility requirements described in the Regulations, this NOFO, and the grant guidelines. An incomplete Application or one that does not meet the eligibility requirements will be declined without further consideration.

    (b) Substantive Review: After an Applicant is determined eligible and its Application is determined complete, NCUA will conduct a substantive review in accordance with the criteria and procedures described in the Regulations, this NOFO, and the grant guidelines. NCUA reserves the right to contact the Applicant during its review for the purpose of clarifying or confirming information contained in the Application. If so contacted, the Applicant must respond within the time specified by NCUA or NCUA, in its sole discretion, may decline the application without further consideration.

    (c) Evaluation and Scoring: The evaluation criteria for each initiative will be more fully described in the grant guidelines.

    (d) Input from Examiners: NCUA may not approve an award to a credit union for which its NCUA regional examining office or State Supervisory Agency (SSA), if applicable, indicates it has safety and soundness concerns. If the NCUA regional office or SSA identifies a safety and soundness concern, OSCUI, in conjunction with the regional office or SSA, will assess whether the condition of the Applicant is adequate to undertake the activities for which funding is requested, and the obligations of the loan and its conditions. NCUA, in its sole discretion, may defer decision on funding an Application until the credit union's safety and soundness conditions improve.

    (e) Award Selection: In general, NCUA will make its award selections based on a consistent scoring system where each applicant will receive an individual score. NCUA will consider the impact of the funding. When grant demand is high applications may be ranked based on the aforementioned in addition to factors listed in the grant guidelines.

    2. Anticipated Announcement and Federal Award Dates: See part D.3.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information

    1. Notice of Award: NCUA will notify each Applicant of its funding decision. Notification will generally be by email. Applicants that are approved for funding will also receive instructions on how to proceed with the reimbursement request for disbursement of funds.

    2. Administration and National Policy Requirements: The specific terms and conditions governing a grant will be established in the grant guidelines for each initiative.

    3. Reimbursement and Reporting: Each awarded credit union must submit a reimbursement request in order to receive the awarded funds. The reimbursement requirements are specific to each initiative. In general, the reimbursement request will require proof of expenses, documentation, an explanation of the impact of funding and any success or failure to meet objectives for use of proceeds, outcome, or impact. NCUA, in its sole discretion, may modify these requirements. Awardees (credit unions) are required to submit the reimbursement request within the expiration date specified in the approval letter.

    G. Agency Contacts

    1. Methods of Contact: Further information can be found at: https://www.ncua.gov/services/Pages/small-credit-union-learning-center/services/grants-loans.aspx. For questions email: National Credit Union Administration, Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives at [email protected]

    2.