Federal Register Vol. 81, No.98,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 98 (May 20, 2016)

Page Range31827-32225
FR Document

81_FR_98
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 32015 - Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training TasksPDF
81 FR 32221 - Wildland-Urban Interface Federal Risk MitigationPDF
81 FR 32217 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Stabilization of IraqPDF
81 FR 31889 - Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991PDF
81 FR 31978 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto, Relating to AIM Retained OrdersPDF
81 FR 31910 - Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010PDF
81 FR 31957 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Permit ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 31912 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish, Rockfish, and EulachonPDF
81 FR 31916 - Procurement List; Addition and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 31917 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionPDF
81 FR 31938 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10006, First Integrity Bank, National Association Staples, MinnesotaPDF
81 FR 31914 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 31969 - Superseded or Outdated Generic CommunicationsPDF
81 FR 31861 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CAPDF
81 FR 32004 - In the Matter of the Designation of ISIL-Libya, aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Libya, aka Islamic State and the Levant in Libya, aka Wilayat Barqa, aka Wilayat Fezzan, aka Wilayat Tripolitania, aka Wilayat Tarablus, aka Wilayat al-Tarablus, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Sec. 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as AmendedPDF
81 FR 31911 - Export Trade Certificate of ReviewPDF
81 FR 32002 - In the Matter of the Designation of ISIL-Saudi Arabia, aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Saudi Arabia, aka Islamic State and the Levant in Saudi Arabia, aka ISIS in Saudi Arabia, aka Wilayat al-Haramayn, aka Wilayat Najd, aka Najd Province, aka Province of the Two Holy Places, aka Mujahideen of the Arabian Peninsula, aka Hijaz Province of the Islamic State, aka Al-Hijaz Province as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
81 FR 32003 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Shrimp Exporter's/Importer's DeclarationPDF
81 FR 32002 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “London Calling: Bacon, Freud, Kossoff, Andrews, Auerbach, and Kitaj” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 32004 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Bruce Conner: It's All True” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 32004 - In the Matter of the Designation of Samir Kuntar, Also Known as Samir Quntar, Also Known as Sameer Kantar, Also Known as Samir Al-Kuntar, Also Known as Samir Qantar, Also Known as Samir Kintar, Also Known as Samir Qintar, Also Known as Samir Cantar as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
81 FR 32002 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Stuart Davis: In Full Swing” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 32003 - In the Matter of the Designation of ISIL-Libya, aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Libya, aka Islamic State and the Levant in Libya, aka Wilayat Barqa, aka Wilayat Fezzan, aka Wilayat Tripolitania, aka Wilayat Tarablus, aka Wilayat al-Tarablus as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
81 FR 32001 - In the Matter of the Designation of ISIL-Yemen, aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Yemen, aka Islamic State and the Levant in Yemen, aka Islamic State in Yemen, aka ISIS in Yemen, aka Wilayat al-Yemen, aka Province of Yemen as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
81 FR 31895 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: System for Award Management RegistrationPDF
81 FR 32004 - Paul Didelius-Continuance in Control Exemption-WRL, LLCPDF
81 FR 31936 - Notification of a Public Meeting of the Science Advisory Board; Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review PanelPDF
81 FR 31937 - National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology MeetingPDF
81 FR 31865 - Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation; Clause for Level of Effort-Cost-Reimbursement ContractPDF
81 FR 31937 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 31953 - Technical Mapping Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 31999 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 32006 - Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program: Eligibility of Ground Access Projects Meeting Certain CriteriaPDF
81 FR 32005 - Noise Exposure Map Notice for Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT), Charlotte, NCPDF
81 FR 31938 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31949 - Maternal and Child Health Collaborative Office RoundsPDF
81 FR 31941 - Medicare Program; Announcement of the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (the Panel) Meeting on August 22-23, 2016 and Announcement of Transition to One Meeting of the Panel Per YearPDF
81 FR 31958 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Steens Mountain Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 31951 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Intermodal ContainersPDF
81 FR 31909 - Notice of June 2, 2016 Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid MeetingPDF
81 FR 31919 - Proposals by Non-Federal Interests, for Feasibility Studies and for Modifications to an Authorized Water Resources Development Project or Feasibility Study, for Inclusion in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources DevelopmentPDF
81 FR 31927 - New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study RequestsPDF
81 FR 31900 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species on Hawaii IslandPDF
81 FR 31959 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Mallinckrodt, LLCPDF
81 FR 31959 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Pharmacore, Inc.PDF
81 FR 31960 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: American Radiolabeled ChemicalsPDF
81 FR 31961 - Exempt Chemical Preparations Under the Controlled Substances ActPDF
81 FR 31915 - Multistakeholder Process To Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Facial Recognition TechnologyPDF
81 FR 31915 - Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 31909 - Final Record of Decision for Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan AmendmentPDF
81 FR 31920 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Foreign Graduate Medical School Consumer Information Reporting FormPDF
81 FR 31969 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31937 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability; Council MeetingPDF
81 FR 32008 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Consumer Protections for Depository Institution Sales of InsurancePDF
81 FR 31967 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Application for a Permit To Fire More Than 20 Boreholes and/or for the Use of Nonpermissible Blasting Units, Explosives, and Shot-Firing Units; Posting Notices of MisfiresPDF
81 FR 31966 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Operations Under WaterPDF
81 FR 31968 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Certificate of Electrical Training and Applications for MSHA Approved Tests and State Tests Administered as Part of an MSHA-Approved State ProgramPDF
81 FR 31868 - Appraisal Subcommittee; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking To Implement Collection and Transmission of Annual AMC Registry FeesPDF
81 FR 31922 - Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Eastern System Upgrade Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
81 FR 31924 - FFP Missouri 16, LLC; FFP Missouri 15, LLC; FFP Missouri 13, LLC; Solia 5 Hydroelectric, LLC ; Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC ; Solia 8 Hydroelectric, LLC ; Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
81 FR 31933 - South Sutter Water District; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 31934 - United Water Conservation District; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 31926 - DesertLink, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
81 FR 31950 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 31950 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 31951 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 31950 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 31925 - Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Delaware River Pipeline Relocation ProjectPDF
81 FR 31924 - Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice Establishing Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 31921 - Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary PrescriptionsPDF
81 FR 31932 - Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 31934 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
81 FR 31935 - Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 31929 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 31933 - Reliability Technical Conference; California Independent System Operator Corporation; California Independent System Operator Corporation; Supplemental Notice With AgendaPDF
81 FR 31958 - 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From China; DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 31918 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31929 - FirstLight Hydro Generating Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 31925 - Tricon Energy Ltd. and Rockbriar Partners Inc. v. Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of ComplaintPDF
81 FR 31926 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 31931 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 31974 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting New NYSE Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) That Are Substantially Similar to FINRA Rules 2090 and 2111 and Deleting Current Rule 405 and the Related NYSE Rule Interpretation To Harmonize Its Rules With Certain Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. RulesPDF
81 FR 31954 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I-290B; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 31955 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, FormI-821D; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 31986 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
81 FR 31996 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing To Suspend the Interbank Service of the GCF Repo® ServicePDF
81 FR 31979 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 4703PDF
81 FR 31981 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Definition of Professional Customer in Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)PDF
81 FR 31994 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Definition of Professional Customer in Rule 900.2NY(18A)PDF
81 FR 31984 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 31973 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31993 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31988 - Nationwide Mutual Funds, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 31973 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31983 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31861 - Security Zone; Protection of Military Cargo, Captain of the Port Zone Puget SoundPDF
81 FR 31947 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31877 - Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council; Filing of Food Additive PetitionPDF
81 FR 31875 - Modification of Regulation Regarding Written Argument: Establishing Word Limits for Case and Rebuttal Briefs in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty ProceedingsPDF
81 FR 31938 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 31965 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Unemployment Insurance Materials TransmittalPDF
81 FR 31972 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 31909 - Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31944 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 31945 - Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 31946 - Blood Products Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 31943 - Advisory Committees; Filing of Closed Meeting ReportsPDF
81 FR 31999 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 32009 - Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)PDF
81 FR 31956 - Agency Information Collection Activities: E-Verify Program; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 31885 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing MaterialsPDF
81 FR 31887 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Control of Emissions From Various Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment From Kraft Pulp MillsPDF
81 FR 31853 - Black Lung Benefits Act: Disclosure of Medical Evidence and Payment of Benefits; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 31862 - Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RIPDF
81 FR 31855 - Special Local Regulations, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound ZonePDF
81 FR 31883 - Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, Lawrenceburg, INPDF
81 FR 31852 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace for the following Tennessee Towns; Jackson, TN; Tri-Cities, TNPDF
81 FR 31854 - Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 31851 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Harlan, KYPDF
81 FR 31880 - Petition To Initiate Rulemaking; Ensuring That Companies With a History of Financial Insolvency, and Their Subsidiary Companies, Are Not Allowed to Self-Bond Coal Mining OperationsPDF
81 FR 32007 - Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for Interstate 11 Corridor Between Nogales and Wickenburg, ArizonaPDF
81 FR 31873 - Protection of Archaeological ResourcesPDF
81 FR 31848 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 31957 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 31844 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 31827 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery ChargersPDF
81 FR 31881 - Alabama Regulatory ProgramPDF
81 FR 32179 - AssessmentsPDF
81 FR 32006 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on 183 North Mobility Project, Travis and Williamson Counties, TexasPDF

Issue

81 98 Friday, May 20, 2016 Contents Agency Agency for International Development NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, 31909 2016-11946 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment, 31941-31943 2016-11949 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA, 31861 2016-11993 Safety Zones: Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI, 31862-31864 2016-11826 Security Zones: Protection of Military Cargo, Captain of the Port Zone Puget Sound, 31861-31862 2016-11870 Special Local Regulations: Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone, 31855-31861 2016-11824 PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Ohio River, Lawrenceburg, IN, 31883-31884 2016-11823 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 31916-31918 2016-11997 2016-11998 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consumer Protections for Depository Institution Sales of Insurance, 32008-32009 2016-11919 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: System for Award Management Registration, 31895-31900 2016-11977 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31918-31919 2016-11890
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Exempt Chemical Preparations under the Controlled Substances Act, 31961-31964 2016-11937 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: American Radiolabeled Chemicals, Saint Louis, MO, 31960-31961 2016-11938 Mallinckrodt, LLC, 31959-31960 2016-11940 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Pharmacore, Inc., High Point, NC, 31959 2016-11939 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Foreign Graduate Medical School Consumer Information Reporting Form, 31920-31921 2016-11927 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers, 31827-31844 2016-11486
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Requests for Feasibility Study and for Modifications to an Authorized Water Resources Development Project, etc., 31919-31920 2016-11944 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Acquisition Regulations: Clause for Level of Effort; Cost-Reimbursement Contract, 31865-31867 2016-11970 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maryland; Control of Emissions from Various Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment from Kraft Pulp Mills, 31887-31889 2016-11844 Pennsylvania; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, 31885-31887 2016-11845 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 31937 2016-11962 Meetings: National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, 31937 2016-11972 Science Advisory Board Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel, 31936 2016-11973 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 31844-31848 2016-11575 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 31848-31851 2016-11683 Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Jackson, TN; Tri-Cities, TN, 31852 2016-11818 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Harlan, KY, 31851-31852 2016-11815 Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks, 32016-32177 C1--2016--05860 NOTICES Noise Exposure Maps: Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, NC, 32005-32006 2016-11953 Passenger Facility Charge Program: Eligibility of Ground Access Projects Meeting Certain Criteria, 32006 2016-11954 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 31889-31895 2016-12025 NOTICES Meetings: Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council, 31937-31938 2016-11920 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Assessments, 32180-32216 2016-11181 NOTICES Termination of Receivership: First Integrity Bank, National Association Staples, MN, 31938 2016-11996 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Meetings: Technical Mapping Advisory Council, 31953-31954 2016-11960 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Alabama Power Co., 31932-31933 2016-11896 Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, 31921-31922 2016-11897 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 31929 2016-11893 Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 31935-31936 2016-11894 FirstLight Hydro Generating Co., 31929-31931 2016-11889 New York State Electric and Gas Corp., 31927-31928 2016-11943 United Water Conservation District, 31934-31935 2016-11905 Combined Filings, 31926-31927, 31931-31932 2016-11886 2016-11887 Commission Staff Attendance, 31934 2016-11895 Complaints: Tricon Energy Ltd. and Rockbriar Partners Inc. v. Colonial Pipeline Company, 31925-31926 2016-11888 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Millennium Pipeline Co., LLC; Eastern System Upgrade Project, 31922-31924 2016-11908 Environmental Reviews: Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, Delaware River Pipeline Relocation Project, 31925 2016-11899 License Applications: South Sutter Water District, 31933 2016-11906 Meetings: FFP Missouri 16, LLC, FFP Missouri 15, LLC, FFP Missouri 13, LLC, Solia 5 Hydroelectric, LLC, Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC, Solia 8 Hydroelectric, LLC; Technical Conference, 31924 2016-11907 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: DesertLink, LLC, 31926 2016-11904 Technical Conference: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 31924-31925 2016-11898 Reliability Technical Conference California Independent System Operator Corporation, 31933-31934 2016-11892 Federal Financial Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council PROPOSED RULES Appraisal Subcommittee: Collection and Transmission of Annual Appraisal Management Company Registry Fees, 31868-31873 2016-11914 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Interstate 11 Corridor between Nogales and Wickenburg, AZ, 32007-32008 2016-11694 Final Federal Agency Actions: 83 North Mobility Project, Travis and Williamson Counties, TX, 32006-32007 2016-11060 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 31938 2016-11863 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31938-31941 2016-11952 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designating Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species on Hawaii Island, 31900-31908 2016-11941 NOTICES Permits: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 31957-31958 2016-12000 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Food Additive Petitions: Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council, 31877-31879 2016-11866 NOTICES Advisory Committees; Filing of Closed Meeting Reports, 31943-31944 2016-11853 Draft Guidance for Industry: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment, 31945-31946 2016-11855 Medical Devices: Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval Applications, 31944-31945 2016-11856 Meetings: Blood Products Advisory Committee, 31946-31947 2016-11854 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Records of Decision: Greater Sage-grouse Bi-state Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment, 31909 2016-11933 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: System for Award Management Registration, 31895-31900 2016-11977 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31947-31949 2016-11869 Class Deviation from Competition Requirements: Maternal and Child Health Collaborative Office Rounds, 31949-31950 2016-11950 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 31957 2016-11619 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration PROPOSED RULES Word Limits for Case and Rebuttal Briefs in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 31875-31877 2016-11864 NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 31910-31911 2016-12003 Export Trade Certificate of Review, 31911-31912 2016-11991 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from China, 31958-31959 2016-11891 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Unemployment Insurance Materials Transmittal, 31965 2016-11861
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Steens Mountain Advisory Council, 31958 2016-11948 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for a Permit to Fire More than 20 Boreholes and/or for the use of Nonpermissible Blasting Units, Explosives, and Shot-firing Units; Posting Notices of Misfires, 31967-31968 2016-11917 Certificate of Electrical Training and Applications for MSHA Approved Tests and State Tests Administered as Part of an MSHA-approved State Program, 31968-31969 2016-11915 Operations under Water, 31966-31967 2016-11916 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: System for Award Management Registration, 31895-31900 2016-11977 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31969 2016-11921 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 31950 2016-11902 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 31950 2016-11900 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 31951 2016-11901 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 31950-31951 2016-11903 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Take of Anadromous Fish, Rockfish, and Eulachon, 31912-31914 2016-11999 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 31914-31915 2016-11995 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: Multistakeholder Process to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Facial Recognition Technology, 31915 2016-11935 Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, 31915-31916 2016-11934 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Guidance: Superseded or Outdated Generic Communications; Withdrawal, 31969-31972 2016-11994 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses; Correction, 31854-31855 2016-11817 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 31972-31973 2016-11859 2016-11860 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Wildland-Urban Interface; Federal Risk Mitigation Guildlines (EO 13728), 32221-32225 2016-12155 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Iraq; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of May 18, 2016), 32217-32219 2016-12142 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31909-31910 2016-11857 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31973-31974, 31983-31984, 31993-31994, 31999 2016-11872 2016-11874 2016-11875 2016-11958 2016-11871 Applications: Nationwide Mutual Funds, et al., 31988-31993 2016-11873 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 31978-31979 2016-12015 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 31996-31999 2016-11880 ISE Mercury, LLC, 31986-31988 2016-11881 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 31974-31977 2016-11884 NYSE Arca, Inc., 31981-31986 2016-11876 2016-11878 NYSE MKT LLC, 31994-31996 2016-11877 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 31979-31981 2016-11879 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31999-32001 2016-11851 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Shrimp Exporter's/Importer's Declaration, 32003 2016-11989 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: BRUCE CONNER: IT'S ALL TRUE, 32004 2016-11986 London Calling: Bacon, Freud, Kossoff, Andrews, Auerbach, and Kitaj, 32002 2016-11988 Stuart Davis: In Full Swing, 32002 2016-11983 Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: ISIL-Libya, aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Libya, aka Islamic State and the Levant in Libya, etc., 32004 2016-11992 Designations as Global Terrorists: ISIL-Libya, a.k.a. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Libya, a.k.a. Islamic State and the Levant in Libya, etc., 32003-32004 2016-11982 ISIL-Saudi Arabia, a.k.a. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Saudi Arabia, a.k.a. Islamic State and the Levant in Saudi Arabia, a.k.a. ISIS in Saudi Arabia, etc., 32002 2016-11990 ISIL-Yemen, a.k.a. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-Yemen, a.k.a. Islamic State and the Levant in Yemen, etc., 32001-32002 2016-11980 Samir Kuntar, a.k.a. Samir Quntar, a.k.a. Sameer Kantar, et al., 32004 2016-11984 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office PROPOSED RULES Alabama Regulatory Program, 31881-31883 2016-11246 Ensuring that Companies with a History of Financial Insolvency, and their Subsidiary Companies, are not Allowed to Self-Bond Coal Mining Operations, 31880-31881 2016-11755 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Continuance in Control Exemptions: Paul Didelius: WRL, LLC, 32004-32005 2016-11974 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority PROPOSED RULES Protection of Archaeological Resources, 31873-31875 2016-11688 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 31955-31956 2016-11882 E-Verify Program, 31956-31957 2016-11848 Notice of Appeal or Motion, 31954-31955 2016-11883 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Country of Origin Determinations: Certain Intermodal Containers, 31951-31953 2016-11947 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Funding Availability: Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Special Need Grant, 32009-32013 2016-11849 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office RULES Black Lung Benefits Act: Disclosure of Medical Evidence and Payment of Benefits, 31853-31854 2016-11840 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Federal Aviation Administration, 32016-32177 C1--2016--05860 Part III Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 32180-32216 2016-11181 Part IV Presidential Documents, 32217-32219 2016-12142 Part V Presidential Documents, 32221-32225 2016-12155 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 98 Friday, May 20, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0044] RIN 1904-AD45 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On August 6, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) to amend the test procedure for battery chargers. This final rule is based on that NOPR. The final rule amends the current test procedure, incorporating changes that will take effect 30 days after the final rule publication date. These changes will be mandatory for product testing to demonstrate compliance with any future energy conservation standards that DOE may adopt and for any representations made regarding the energy consumption or energy efficiency of battery chargers starting 180 days after publication of this rule. In summary, these changes update the battery selection criteria for multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers, harmonize the instrumentation resolution and uncertainty requirements with the second edition of the International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”) 62301 standard for measuring standby power, define and exclude back-up battery chargers from the testing requirements of this rulemaking, outline provisions for conditioning lead acid batteries, specify sampling and certification requirements for compliance with future energy conservation standards, and correct typographical errors in the current test procedure.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is June 20, 2016. The final rule changes will be mandatory for representations made starting November 16, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0044. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected] Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule incorporates the resolution parameters for power measurements and uncertainty methodologies found in section 4 of IEC 62301, Edition 2.0, 2011-01, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power”, (“IEC 62301”) by reference into part 430.

Copies of the IEC 62301 standard can be obtained from the IEC's webstore at https://webstore.iec.ch/home.

Table of Contents I. Authority and Background II. Summary of the Final Rule III. Discussion A. Measurement Accuracy and Precision B. Battery Selection and Testing of Multi-Voltage, Multi-Capacity Battery Chargers C. Back-Up Battery Chargers D. Conditioning and Discharge Rate for Lead Acid Battery Chargers E. Sampling and Certification Requirements F. Enforcement Testing Sampling Plan G. Corrections to Typographical Errors H. Limiting Other Non-Battery-Charger Functions I. Discharging Lithium Ion Batteries IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Description of Material Incorporated by Reference N. Congressional Notification V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; “EPCA” or, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.1 Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” Battery chargers are among the consumer products affected by these provisions.

1 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) ensuring their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides that any new or amended test procedure must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish a proposed test procedure and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of the covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1))

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPACT 2005”), Public Law 109-58 (Aug. 8, 2005), amended EPCA by adding provisions related to battery chargers. Among these provisions were definitions outlining what constitutes a battery charger and a requirement that DOE prescribe definitions and test procedures for the power use of battery chargers and external power supplies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A)) DOE complied with this requirement by publishing a test procedure final rule on December 8, 2006, that established a new Appendix Y to address the testing of battery chargers to measure their energy consumption and adopted several definitions related to the testing of battery chargers. 71 FR 71340 (codified at appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers”). Lastly, DOE incorporated by reference specific sections of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (“EPA”) “Test Methodology for Determining the Energy Performance of Battery Charging Systems” 2 when measuring inactive mode energy consumption.

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Test Methodology for Determining the Energy Performance of Battery Charging Systems.” December 2005. Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/downloads/Battery_Chargers_Test_Method.pdf.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007) later amended EPCA by defining active mode, standby mode, and off mode. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)) EISA 2007 also directed DOE to amend its existing test procedure by December 31, 2008, to measure the energy consumed in standby mode and off mode for battery chargers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)(i)) Further, it authorized DOE to amend, by rule, any of the definitions for active, standby, and off modes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B)) Accordingly, DOE issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on August 15, 2008 (73 FR 48054), and a final rule on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13318) to establish definitions for these terms.

Subsequently, in response to numerous testing issues raised by commenters in the context of DOE's energy conservation standards rulemaking efforts for battery chargers, DOE issued another NOPR on April 2, 2010. 75 FR 16958. The NOPR proposed adding a new active mode energy consumption test procedure for battery chargers that would assist in developing potential energy conservation standards for these products. DOE also proposed amending portions of its standby and off mode battery charger test procedure to shorten overall measurement time. DOE held a public meeting to discuss its test procedure NOPR on May 7, 2010, where it also received comments on the proposals set forth in the NOPR. After receiving comments at the public meeting, DOE published a final rule that codified a new active mode test procedure and amended the standby and off mode test procedures. 76 FR 31750 (June 1, 2011). As federal standards for battery chargers have yet to be finalized, DOE has not required manufacturers to submit energy efficiency data for their products tested under the battery charger test procedure.

Following the publication of the most recent battery charger test procedure final rule, DOE continued to receive additional questions and requests for clarification regarding the testing, rating, and classification of battery chargers. As part of the continuing effort to establish federal energy conservation standards for battery chargers and to develop a clear and widely applicable test procedure, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on May 15, 2014. 79 FR 27774. The NODA sought stakeholder comments concerning the repeatability of the test procedure for battery chargers with several consumer configurations, and on anticipated market penetration of new battery charging technologies that may require further revisions to DOE's regulations. DOE also sought stakeholder comments on the reporting methodologies for manufacturers attempting to comply with California's Energy Commission's (CEC's) efficiency standards for battery chargers in order to understand certain data discrepancies in the CEC database. DOE indicated its interest in soliciting feedback to determine whether the current procedure contained any ambiguities requiring clarification. These issues were discussed during DOE's NODA public meeting on June 3, 2014.

To improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the battery charger test procedure, DOE issued a NOPR on August 6, 2015 (“August 2015 NOPR”), which, based on stakeholder comments to the NODA, proposed amendments to appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 and to 10 CFR part 429. 80 FR 46855. DOE then held a public meeting to discuss these proposed amendments on September 15, 2015 and allowed for written comments to be submitted through October 20, 2015. This rule addresses comments that were received on the proposal, and finalizes many of the proposed changes to appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 and to 10 CFR part 429.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

This final rule makes several amendments to the current test procedure for battery chargers. First, the final rule harmonizes the current test procedure for battery chargers with the latest version of the IEC 62301 standard by providing specific resolution and measurement tolerances. This amendment ensures that the measurements resulting from the current test procedure are repeatable and reproducible.

Second, the final rule amends the battery selection criteria for multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers to limit the number of batteries selected for testing to one. For multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers, the battery with the highest rated voltage is to be selected for testing. If at least two batteries meet the criteria of having the highest rated voltage, then the battery with the highest rated charge capacity at that rated voltage is to be selected for testing.

Third, the final rule defines and excludes back-up battery chargers embedded in continuous use devices from being required to be tested under the battery charger test procedure.

Fourth, the final rule allows lead acid batteries to be conditioned prior to testing by applying the protocol currently used for other battery chemistries (excluding lithium-ion). DOE is aware that a lead acid battery's condition may vary upon purchase and this variation can impact the performance of lead acid batteries. Conditioning of these batteries prior to testing will help mitigate the extent of this variation and reduce the variability of the test results.

Fifth, the final rule adds product-specific certification reporting requirements to 10 CFR 429.39(b), which had been reserved. The final rule also adds a sampling methodology to be used for determining representations of battery charger energy consumption and also adds provisions for enforcement testing. These amendments specify the required data elements to certify compliance with any energy conservation standards for battery chargers that DOE may adopt, describe how to calculate the representations, and provide a method for DOE to enforce compliance with any energy conservation standards for battery chargers that DOE may promulgate.

Sixth, the final rule corrects an internal cross-reference error in the current version of Table 3.1 contained in appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, adds units of measurement to the measured and calculated values in the table, and removes the empty value column currently contained in that table. Additionally, the final rule corrects a typographical error in section 5.8(c)(2) of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

Table II-1 below summarizes the changes and affected sections of 10 CFR parts 429 and 430.

Table II-1—Summary of Changes and Affected Sections of 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 Modified sections Summary of modifications 429.39 Battery Chargers • Revised requirements for determining represented values for battery chargers in 429.39(a). • Created a new paragraph (b), specifying requirements for certifications of compliance with energy conservation standards for battery chargers. 430.2. Definitions • Added definition of “back-up battery charger.” 1. Scope • Inserted exceptions for back-up battery chargers embedded in continuous use devices. 2. Definitions • Inserted unit in the definition of C-Rate in section 2.10. • Renamed “rated battery voltages” as “Nameplate battery voltages” in section 2.17. • Renamed “Rated battery voltage” as “Nameplate battery voltage” in section 2.19. • Renamed “Rated charge capacity” as “Nameplate battery charge capacity” in section 2.20. • Renamed “Rated energy capacity” as “Nameplate battery energy capacity” in section 2.21. 3. Standard Test Conditions • Incorporated by reference the uncertainty requirements of IEC 62301 in 3.2(a). • Corrected the internal cross reference in Table 3.1 for item 4 and modified the table by removing the current “value” column and adding units to the table as appropriate. 4. Unit Under Test (UUT) Setup Requirements • Revised 4.3(a)(1) to remove the possibility of misinterpretation regarding selection of batteries to use for testing for battery chargers packaged with multiple batteries. • Clarified in section 4.3(b) that a single battery must be selected as a result of applying the battery selection criteria in Table 4.1. Inserted a paragraph in section 4.3(b) to require selecting the single battery resulting in the highest maintenance mode power when following Table 4.1 results in two or more distinct batteries. • Changed “rated charge capacity” and “rated charge capacities” to “nameplate battery charge capacity” and “nameplate battery charge capacities,” respectively, in section 4.3(c). • Updated Table 4.1 to remove instances of multiple batteries for test and instructed that, where applicable, the battery with the highest voltage must be selected for testing. If multiple batteries meet the criteria of highest voltage, then the battery with the highest charge capacity at that voltage must be selected for testing. Removed column “number of tests.” 5. Test Measurements • Changed “rated battery voltage”, “rated charge capacity” and “rated charge energy” to “nameplate battery voltage”, “nameplate battery charge capacity” and “nameplate battery energy capacity,” respectively, in section 5.1. • Removed reference to lead acid batteries from section 5.3(a). • Inserted provision for lead acid batteries to be discharged to end-of-discharge voltages specified in Table 5.2. • Removed reference to lead acid from section 5.3(d). • Corrected the unit of discharge current to “C” in section 5.8(c)(2). • Added footnote in Table 5.2 regarding situations with protective circuits preventing batteries from reaching the specified discharge voltage. III. Discussion

In response to the August 2015 NOPR, DOE received written comments from 18 interested parties, including manufacturers, trade associations, standards development organizations, energy efficiency advocacy groups, and a foreign government. Table III-1 below lists the entities that commented on that NOPR and their affiliation. These comments are discussed in more detail below, and the full set of comments can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0044.

Table III-1—Interested Parties That Provided Written Comments on the August 2015 NOPR Commenter Acronym Comment No.
  • (docket
  • reference)
  • Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Power Tool Institute and Outdoor Power Equipment Institute Joint Commenters 16 ARRIS Group, Inc and Cisco Systems, Inc ARRIS 19 California Energy Commission CEC 08 California Investor Owned Utilities CA IOUs 21 Delta-Q Technologies Corp Delta-Q 11 Information Technology Industry Council ITI 17 iRobot Corp iRobot 07 Japan Four Electric and Electronic Industrial Associations Japan 4EE 06 Johnson Outdoor Marine Electronics, Inc JOME 02 National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA 13 National Marine Manufacturers Association NMMA 09 Natural Resources Defense Council, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NRDC, et al 20 NOPR Public Meeting Transcript, various parties Pub. Mtg. Tr 04 People's Republic of China P. R. China 05 Power MergerCo, Inc Power MergerCo 15 Power Tools Institute and Outdoor Power Equipment Institute PTI/OPEI 14 Schneider Electric Schneider Electric 12 Telecommunications Industry Association TIA 10 WAHL Clipper Corp WAHL Clipper 18
    A. Measurement Accuracy and Precision

    To continue to ensure that DOE's test procedure for battery chargers is harmonized with the default guidelines for power and energy measurements generally recognized by many regulatory bodies, DOE proposed in the August 2015 NOPR to incorporate by reference the resolution parameters and uncertainty methodologies found in section 4 of the second edition of the IEC 62301 standard. 80 FR 46855, 46861.

    DOE received comments from the CA IOUs, ITI, NEMA, NMMA, Schneider Electric, and WAHL Clipper supporting the proposal. (CA IOUs, No. 21, p. 3, ITI, No. 17, p. 4, NEMA, No. 13, p. 3, NMMA, No. 9, p. 3, Schneider Electric, No. 12, p. 4, WAHL Clipper, No. 18, p. 1). DOE also received comments from JOME and Delta-Q opposing the proposal. JOME expressed concern that the sampling rate of at least one sample per second prescribed in the second edition of the IEC 62301 standard will produce large amounts of data during the 24-hour energy consumption test and the management of these data can be cumbersome for manufacturers. (JOME, No. 2, p. 2) JOME and Delta-Q both recommended a sampling rate of at least one sample per minute. (JOME, No. 2, p. 2, Delta-Q, No. 11, p. 1) Additionally, JOME opposed the mandated calculation of uncertainty of measurement in annex D of the second edition of the IEC 62301 standard. (JOME, No. 2, p. 3)

    DOE believes that harmonization with the second edition of the IEC 62301 standard is necessary for ensuring accuracy and repeatability of test results for battery chargers. DOE does not believe that the increase in data resulting from the higher sampling rate is cumbersome or unduly burdensome on manufacturers since test data acquisition and storage is performed automatically using electronic test equipment. Furthermore, DOE believes that the mandated calculation of uncertainty of measurement, as prescribed in annex D of the second edition of the IEC 62301 standard, is necessary for appropriately quantifying the accuracy of measured values. Thus, DOE is incorporating by reference the resolution parameters and uncertainty methodologies found in section 4 of the second edition of the IEC 62301 standard in this final rule.

    B. Battery Selection and Testing of Multi-Voltage, Multi-Capacity Battery Chargers

    In order to eliminate ambiguity in the battery selection criteria and reduce testing burden on manufacturers, DOE proposed in the August 2015 NOPR to reduce the number of batteries selected for testing certain multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers to one. 80 FR at 46860. These criteria are applicable to multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers packaged or sold without a battery or packaged and sold with more than one battery. Specifically, DOE proposed to modify Table 4.1 to eliminate the multiple tests currently required for multi-voltage and multi-capacity battery chargers and instead require that only one battery with the highest voltage and/or highest capacity be selected. DOE's proposal would result in only one set of test results, and after application of the sampling plan, a single represented value for each basic model of battery charger. Any potential energy conservation standard would only apply to the specific combination that is required to be tested and represented as part of the test procedure.

    DOE received numerous comments from a variety of stakeholders regarding the proposed change in the battery selection criteria for multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers. First, DOE received comments from NEMA, NRDC, et al., and Schneider Electric opposing the proposal to limit the number of batteries selected for testing multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers to one. NEMA argued that limiting the number of batteries selected for testing to a single battery prescribes an unnecessary restriction on manufacturers of battery chargers. NEMA further argued that multiple chemistries and capacity values make battery chargers a very diverse category, whose test results cannot be duplicated under too-specific test procedures. (NEMA, No. 13, p. 2) Schneider Electric also argued that limiting the number of batteries selected for testing to a single battery is an unnecessary and burdensome restriction on battery charger manufacturers. Schneider Electric stated that testing a battery charger with the highest voltage or highest capacity battery does not capture the worst-case energy consumption of the battery charger. Schneider Electric recommended an approach requiring manufacturers to select, identify, and declare which battery was used for testing (typically, the worst-case battery subsystem in terms of energy consumption). These testing specifics would be reported and available to DOE and third-party test facilities, to enable them to reproduce the test results. (Schneider Electric, No. 12, p. 2)

    DOE believes that the proposed battery selection criteria for testing multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers, packaged or sold without a battery or packaged and sold with more than one battery, is most representative of the overall energy use of the battery charger while reducing testing burden on manufacturers of battery chargers. Due to the increased costs and complexity for a battery charger to support higher voltages, it is unlikely that a manufacturer would add support for higher voltages unless there was a strong demand to charge such batteries. Adding support for lower voltage batteries, however, incurs little to no additional cost or design complexity. Thus, the highest voltage and/or highest capacity battery is likely the most representative combination for a battery charger. As Schneider Electric notes, the highest voltage or capacity may not necessarily be the highest energy use. However, the highest voltage or capacity would be the most common use of such a battery charger. Additionally, it would be burdensome to determine which battery did result in the highest energy use as that would require testing all the combinations of batteries the battery charger supported and, at this point in time, DOE does not have a reason to believe this is necessary. Allowing manufacturers to declare and select the battery used would reduce the testing burden; however, that approach could be inconsistently applied amongst different manufacturers based on how such batteries were selected and may result in battery selections that are not commonly used by consumers. DOE also notes that restricting test results to a single battery instead of multiple batteries would reduce burden on a manufacturer if the potential energy conservation standards only require compliance at the tested battery configuration. Finally, contrary to the assertion of NEMA and Schneider Electric, manufacturers would still be able to distribute the basic model of battery charger with other batteries; DOE is only limiting the battery with which the manufacturer is required to test the battery charger.

    NRDC, et al. also opposed DOE's proposal and recommended that DOE retain the current battery selection criteria for multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers so that these chargers are tested against the entire range of batteries compatible with that basic model of charger. Further, NRDC, et al. recommended that the test procedure should ensure battery chargers are tested with the batteries they are shipped with instead of the highest capacity batteries that the chargers are capable of charging. (NRDC, et al., No. 20, p. 3) While DOE is finalizing its proposal of testing multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers shipped either with multiple batteries or without a battery, with one and only one battery to, in part, remove ambiguity in the battery selection criteria, the primary reason is to balance testing burden on manufacturers against potential losses in energy savings that may arise due to testing in specific configurations or modes. DOE believes that testing at the highest voltage would most likely capture the highest energy use of the battery charger as well as the most common use of the battery charger by consumers. DOE will monitor the market as compliance is required and revisit this approach if DOE believes this approach is resulting in unintended consequences. DOE further emphasizes that the selection criteria provided in Table 4.1 of Appendix Y apply only to battery chargers packaged with multiple batteries, or packaged without a battery. The selection criteria do not apply to battery chargers with integrated batteries or to battery charger basic models that are packaged with only one battery (in each of those cases, the battery packaged with the charger would be used for testing). For a battery charger packaged with a battery, the battery charger basic model includes the entire battery charger system as packaged together and distributed into commerce. Therefore, if a battery charger is packaged and sold with a single battery of a particular voltage and capacity, and that same charger model is packaged and sold with another single battery of different voltage and capacity, then each combination of charger circuitry and battery would be considered its own battery charger basic model. A battery charger basic model is subject to testing, certification, and compliance with an energy conservation standard. The selection criteria are not relevant in these cases because the test procedure would require testing the battery charger circuitry and the (single) battery packaged together as a single battery charger basic model. The battery selection criteria proposed in the August 2015 NOPR are only used when more than one battery is packaged with a battery charger or when no batteries are packaged with the charger. For the reasons stated above, DOE is finalizing its proposal to reduce the number of batteries selected for testing certain multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers packaged with multiple batteries, or packaged without a battery, to one in this final rule.

    DOE also received stakeholder comments supporting the proposed battery selection criteria but arguing that the highest voltage and highest capacity might not always be found in the same physical battery. (The Joint Commenters, No. 16, p. 5; DELL Inc., Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, p. 31-33). Under DOE's proposal, a multi-voltage and multi-capacity battery charger would be tested using the battery or configuration of batteries with the highest individual voltage and highest total rated energy capacity. Upon further consideration, DOE acknowledges that this proposal creates ambiguity in cases where a battery with a lower voltage has a higher rated energy capacity than a battery with a higher voltage, and vice-versa. To eliminate this ambiguity in the proposed battery selection criteria, ITI and PTI/OPEI recommended selecting a battery with the highest capacity, and if multiple batteries exist with the same capacity then the battery with the highest voltage would be selected. (ITI, No. 17, p. 2, PTI/OPEI, No 14, p. 4) In contrast, NRDC, et al. recommended selecting a battery with the highest voltage, and if multiple batteries of the same voltage exist then select the battery with the highest capacity. (NRDC, et al., No. 20, p. 2) NRDC, et al. also recommended selecting the battery with the lowest charge capacity, and if multiple batteries meet this criterion, then the compatible battery with the lowest voltage and lowest charge capacity would be selected. (NRDC, et al., No. 20, p. 3) NEMA recommended that manufacturers should be permitted discretion on battery selection based on internal considerations such as the most common type of batteries used in their supply chain, etc. (NEMA, No. 13, p. 2) DOE also received comments that recommended selecting the most common battery for the application (JOME, No. 2, p. 2), the battery mentioned in the user manual (Japan 4EE, No. 6, p. 3), and the readily available batteries specific to lead acid battery chargers (NMMA, No. 9, p. 2).

    The proposals from NEMA, Japan 4EE, and NMMA could be representative of the battery charger energy; however, there is no way to ensure repeatability when selecting the battery since different manufacturers may select recommended batteries for reasons unrelated to representativeness, the most commonly used battery may change over time, and readily available batteries may also change over time resulting in constant retesting and recertifications.

    In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed that the highest voltage and/or highest capacity battery be selected for multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers. 80 FR at 46860. DOE intended to prioritize battery voltage over battery capacity. Higher voltages require the most design consideration for battery chargers, and a manufacturer would not design for higher voltages unless it was common and significant to the use of the battery charger. Increased battery capacity generally does not require as significant a redesign of the battery charger. Therefore, in response to stakeholder comments and to clarify its original intention, DOE is modifying the battery selection criteria language for multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers in Table 4.1 to more clearly specify that battery voltage is prioritized over battery capacity. This update eliminates any ambiguity in the battery selection criteria while ensuring that the energy consumption of multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers is tested at the most representative combination as DOE intended.

    Further, DOE received comments from NRDC, et al. supporting DOE's additional proposed criterion of testing a multi-voltage, multi-capacity, multi-chemistry battery charger with a battery that results in the highest maintenance mode power if applying the battery selection criteria in Table 4.1 results in more than one battery selected (such that two or more batteries, each with a unique chemistry, meet the selection criteria). (NRDC, et al., No. 20, p. 2) However, NMMA recommended that DOE clarify that the selection criterion of highest maintenance mode power only applies to chargers of distinct chemistries, and does not apply to lead acid battery chargers sold without an accompanying battery. NMMA stated that the maintenance mode power of lead acid batteries depends on a number of factors, not all manufacturers of lead acid batteries publish this information, and, therefore, selection of worst-case lead acid batteries may be difficult to achieve. (NMMA, No. 9, p. 2)

    In response to the concern raised by NMMA, DOE clarifies that the additional battery selection criterion of selecting the battery that results in the highest mode maintenance power was intended to only apply when application of the battery selection criteria in Table 4.1 to multi-voltage, multi-capacity, multi-chemistry chargers results in more than one battery (such that two or more batteries, each with a unique chemistry, meet the selection criteria). This criterion was not intended to and will not apply to multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers sold without an accompanied battery that are only capable of charging batteries of a single chemistry such as lead acid. Additionally, since DOE is reducing the testing burden to a single voltage point, testing with the highest maintenance mode power ensures that the energy savings from a potential energy conservation standard is maximized. Therefore, DOE is finalizing the additional battery selection criterion of selecting the battery and battery charger combination resulting in the highest maintenance mode power if applying the battery selection criteria in Table 4.1 results in more than one battery (such that two or more batteries, each with a unique chemistry, meet the selection criteria) for a multi-voltage, multi-capacity, multi-chemistry battery charger.

    Lastly, NEMA recommended that DOE require manufacturers of multi-voltage, multi-capacity, multi-chemistry battery chargers to identify and declare testing specifics that would be reported and available to DOE and third-party test facilities, to enable them to reproduce the test results. (NEMA, No. 13, p. 2) NEMA's recommendation was based on its recommendation that DOE relax the requirements of its proposed test procedure to allow options for battery selection under these circumstances. NEMA contended that “too-specific test procedures challenge successful duplication of test efforts.” (NEMA, No. 13, p. 2) DOE believes, to the contrary, that deviation from the standard protocols would negatively affect accuracy and repeatability of test results. Therefore, this test procedure final rule for battery chargers details and standardizes all specifics surrounding compliance testing. As such, there will be no need for the requirement recommended by NEMA.

    C. Back-Up Battery Chargers

    In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to define back-up battery chargers and exclude them from the scope of the battery chargers test procedure rulemaking. 80 FR at 46860. In that document, DOE explained that because these types of devices are becoming increasingly integrated with a variety of products that do not perform back-up battery charging as a primary function, measuring the energy use associated with the battery charging function of these devices is often extremely difficult—if not impossible—because of the inability to isolate the energy usage from the battery charging function during testing. DOE proposed to define back-up battery chargers in 10 CFR 430.2 as a battery charger that: (1) Is embedded in a separate end-use product that is designed to operate continuously using mains power (AC or DC), and (2) has as its sole purpose to recharge a battery used to maintain continuity of load power in case of input power failure.

    DOE received comments from ARRIS and Japan 4EE supporting DOE's decision to define and exclude back-up battery chargers from the scope of the battery chargers test procedure. (ARRIS, No. 19, p. 1, Japan 4EE, No. 6, p. 3) However, DOE also received comments from the CA IOUs, CEC, NRDC, et al. and Schneider Electric opposing this aspect of DOE's proposal. Schneider Electric expressed concern that, in the absence of a Federal test procedure covering back-up battery chargers, manufacturers of back-up battery chargers are faced with the possibility of individual states introducing numerous and potentially inconsistent test procedures and energy conservation standards, which will be unduly burdensome on manufacturers. (Schneider Electric, No. 12, p. 1) The CEC, CA IOUs, and NRDC, et al. contended that excluding back-up battery chargers from the test procedure will preempt the CEC's existing energy efficiency standards for back-up battery chargers, which can potentially lead to backsliding of energy savings from the CEC standards. Furthermore, the CEC, CA IOUs and NRDC, et al. suggested that, if DOE decides to exclude back-up battery chargers from the scope of the battery chargers test procedure, DOE should exclude back-up battery chargers from the definition of battery chargers altogether, which will allow the current CEC standards to remain applicable until DOE decides to introduce a specific test procedure for back-up battery chargers. (CEC, No. 8, p. 3, CA IOUs, No. 21, p. 3, NRDC, et al., No. 20, p. 2)

    In response to these concerns, DOE clarifies here that, while the rule adopted here will preempt state test procedures for battery chargers, state energy conservation standards for battery chargers, including back-up battery chargers and UPSs, prescribed or enacted before publication of this final rule, will not be preempted until the compliance date of Federal energy conservation standards for battery chargers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ii)(1))

    DOE has considered all stakeholder comments related to this topic and is finalizing the exclusion of back-up battery chargers, as defined in 10 CFR 430.2, from the battery charger test procedure. This is not because it is not possible to apply the test procedure to back-up battery chargers, but rather because applying the battery charger test procedure to back-up battery chargers does not result in a representative measure of the energy consumption of these battery chargers. While the battery charger test procedure allows a manufacturer to minimize standby power of additional functionalities or incorporate an on-off switch to disable non-battery charger functions, doing so is impractical for applications that are designed to operate continuously. There would be no practical reason, therefore, for a manufacturer to implement potentially costly technology or switches that limit the non-battery charging functions of a design in which those non-battery charging functions are designed to be operated continuously, and thus, are not representative of typical use.

    Similarly, DOE is excluding uninterruptible power supplies (“UPSs”) from this battery charger test procedure. DOE has proposed, as part of a separate rulemaking, a test procedure for UPSs that contain an AC output. See http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f31/Uninterruptible%20Power%20Supply%20Test%20Procedure%20NOPR_0.pdf. That rulemaking, if finalized as proposed, would establish a different battery charger test procedure for UPSs with an AC output, and would ensure that a uniform and consistent test procedure exists for these type of battery chargers that is representative of their energy consumption and energy efficiency.

    DOE also received comments from ITI requesting that DOE define and exclude rechargeable battery subsystems from the test procedure for battery chargers. ITI defines rechargeable battery subsystems as “rechargeable batteries and battery charger systems contained completely within a larger product that are not capable of providing normal operation of the parent product when AC mains power is removed.” ITI argued these products are functionally different from other battery chargers covered under this regulation. ITI contends that batteries and battery charging subsystems cannot be effectively isolated from the parent device for testing and there is no appropriate test procedure to measure the energy consumption of these subsystems. (ITI, No. 17, pp. 3-4)

    After researching applications and architectures of rechargeable battery subsystems, as defined by ITI, DOE believes that rechargeable battery subsystems would already meet the proposed definition of back-up battery chargers. In particular, a battery charger that maintains a battery used to provide partial operation of a parent product in the event of an input power failure would not preclude it from meeting the definition proposed by DOE. Therefore, under DOE's proposal, rechargeable battery subsystems would be excluded from the scope of the battery charger test procedure. Based on the comment from ITI, DOE is finalizing a modified definition of back-up battery chargers in 10 CFR 430.2 to make clear that a battery charger system embedded in a continuous use product does not need to maintain continuity of normal operation in the event of a power loss to qualify as a back-up battery charger. Hence, in this final rule, back-up battery charger means a battery charger (excluding UPSs) that: (1) Is embedded in a separate end-use product that is designed to continuously operate using mains power (including end-use products that use external power supplies), and (2) has as its sole purpose to recharge a battery used to maintain continuity of power in order to provide normal or partial operation of a product in case of loss of input power. This definition of back-up battery chargers clarifies that rechargeable battery subsystems meet the definition of back-up battery chargers.

    D. Conditioning and Discharge Rate for Lead Acid Battery Chargers

    In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to apply the same battery conditioning provisions found in section 5.3(c) of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, to lead acid batteries and use a 50% depth of discharge during conditioning cycles. 80 FR at 46861. Since the publication of the NOPR, DOE received comments from JOME, Delta-Q, NEMA, Schneider Electric and ITI supporting the proposal of allowing conditioning for lead acid batteries prior to testing. (JOME, No. 2, p. 3, Delta-Q, No. 11, p. 2, NEMA, No. 13, p. 3, Schneider Electric, No. 12, p. 4, ITI, No. 17, pp. 4-5) However, some of these commenters also recommended alternative methods for conditioning lead acid batteries. JOME requested that DOE should refrain from mandating two conditioning cycles for large lead acid batteries because of time considerations. (JOME, No. 2, p. 3) Similarly, Delta-Q recommended that DOE should not mandate two conditioning cycles for lead acid batteries. (Delta-Q, No. 11, p. 1) Schneider Electric and ITI suggested conditioning lead acid batteries by means of a float charger for a duration of at least 72 hours for batteries that have been in storage for 3 months or longer. (Schneider Electric, No. 12, p. 4, ITI, No. 17, p. 5) NEMA recommended that DOE provide flexibility in the process of conditioning batteries for certification testing. NEMA highlighted that it is not unusual for lead acid batteries to be in storage for some time and that two discharge cycles may not be enough to fully recover their capacity. Further, NEMA mentioned that a float charge of 72 hours duration is also sometimes used following 100% discharge cycles depending on battery condition, age or other needs. (NEMA, No. 13, p. 3)

    NRDC, et al. opposed the proposal to allow lead acid batteries to be conditioned prior to testing. In its view, unlike the current test procedure, permitting the conditioning of lead acid batteries would allow lower efficiency battery chargers to comply with the proposed energy efficiency standards. (NRDC, et al., No. 20, p. 5) The CEC also recommended that if DOE decides to allow conditioning of lead acid batteries prior to testing, DOE must also factor the impact of this conditioning into its proposed energy conservation standards for lead acid battery chargers. (CEC, No. 8, p. 7)

    DOE has become aware that the condition of lead acid batteries may vary upon purchase and this variation can impact the repeatability of test results of lead acid battery chargers. Given this fact, conditioning lead acid batteries prior to testing will produce more accurate and repeatable representations of battery discharge energy, which will result in more accurate and repeatable representations of energy consumption for lead acid battery chargers. Additionally, standardizing the battery conditioning protocol will help to ensure repeatability of all test results. DOE has not collected or received any data to suggest that cycling a lead acid battery twice—as is being adopted in this rule—would significantly increase that battery's energy capacity. Therefore, in the absence of such data, DOE also does not believe that allowing conditioning of lead acid batteries needs to be factored into potential energy conservation standards (as commented by CEC) because its impact on the measured energy consumption is minimal. With regards to the use of float chargers for batteries stored for at least 3 months, DOE notes that section 5.3(d) of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 already contains provisions to fully charge the battery if it has already been conditioned through at least two cycles, which could include a float charger to charge the battery. DOE does not believe it is necessary to specify in detail the type of charging used. After careful consideration of comments from all interested stakeholders, DOE is finalizing its proposal to condition lead acid batteries prior to testing by applying the provisions for conditioning found in section 5.3(c) of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

    DOE also proposed to amend its test procedure by providing manufacturers with the option of choosing from a 5-hour (“C/5” or “0.2C”), 10-hour (“C/10” or “0.1C”), or 20-hour (“C/20” or “.05C”) discharge rate when testing lead acid batteries. DOE's proposal limited this option to lead acid batteries with an energy capacity above 1,000 watt-hours (Wh) because a longer discharge cycle would do little to maximize discharge energy for batteries under 1,000 Wh, but would have a more significant impact on maximizing discharge energy for batteries greater than 1,000 Wh. 80 FR at 46861.

    JOME, NMMA and Delta-Q provided comments supporting the allowance of slower discharge rates for large lead acid batteries. (JOME, No. 2, p. 3, NMMA, No. 9, p. 3, Delta-Q, No. 11, p. 3) However, NRDC, et al., CEC and the CA IOUs strongly opposed allowing slower discharge rates for large lead acid batteries. (NRDC, et al., No. 20, p. 4, CEC, No. 8, pp. 4-5, CA IOUs, No. 21, p. 4) NRDC, et al. stated that slower discharge rates are not representative of applications with fast discharge rates, such as golf carts. (NRDC, et al., No. 20, p. 4) Similarly, P. R. China claimed that certain practical applications of large lead acid batteries require higher discharge currents and 1-hour, 2-hour and 3-hour discharge rates are more representative of these applications. Instead, it recommended using discharge rates that are representative of their practical application. (P. R. China, No. 5, p. 3) Lastly, NRDC, et al., the CEC and the CA IOUs requested that DOE reassess its proposed energy conservation standards for battery chargers if DOE decides to allow slower discharge rates for large lead acid batteries. (NRDC, et al., No. 20. p. 5, CEC, No. 8, p. 7, CA IOUs, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, p. 64)

    After careful consideration of comments submitted by all interested stakeholders on this issue, DOE is electing not to finalize its proposal of allowing multiple discharge rates for large lead acid batteries. Therefore, all batteries will continue to be discharged at the 5-hour (i.e., C/5 or 0.2C) discharge rate as prescribed in the current test procedure for battery chargers. While a single discharge rate is not representative of all applications of batteries, the 5-hour discharge rate is currently used by all manufacturers of battery chargers as part of the Appliance Efficiency Regulations for Battery Charger Systems by the CEC. See Table D in section III.F of Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure Version 2.2.3 Moreover, usage of a 5-hour discharge rate for all batteries effectively avoids any variability that would be introduced by allowing manufacturers of certain battery chargers to use one of three specified discharge rates.

    3 California Energy Commission. Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure, (November 2008). Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/2008-AAER-1B/2008-11-19_BATTERY_CHARGER_SYSTEM_TEST_PROCEDURE.PDF.

    Finally, a number of stakeholders highlighted a typographical error in the proposed requirements for conditioning lead acid batteries found in section 5.3(c) of appendix Y to subpart B to 10 CFR part 430 where it is stated that lead acid batteries should be discharged to 50% of the rated voltage instead of to 50% depth of discharge. 80 FR at 46869. Delta-Q requested DOE fix this error by stating that lead acid batteries should be discharged to 50% of rated capacity. (Delta-Q, No. 11, p. 2) Schneider Electric, NEMA, and PTI/OPEI requested DOE fix this error by stating that lead acid batteries should be discharged to voltage levels provided in Table 5.2 of the existing battery charger test procedure. (Schneider Electric, No. 12, p. 4, NEMA, No. 13, p. 3, PTI/OPEI, No. 14, p. 4)

    DOE is resolving this clerical error in the final rule by stating that all lead acid batteries be conditioned by discharging to the voltage levels already stated in Table 5.2 of the current test procedure for battery chargers, which is consistent with DOE's original intention of discharging lead acid batteries to 50% depth of discharge during conditioning.

    E. Sampling and Certification Requirements

    DOE proposed to update 10 CFR 429.39, section (a), “Determination of represented value”, and reserved section (b), “Certification Reports,” to detail how to apply the sampling plan to calculate represented values for each measure of energy consumption, time, and power recorded as part of the battery charger test procedure, and subsequently report those ratings during certification. 80 FR at 46862. Specifically, DOE proposed that certification reports for battery chargers include represented values for the measured maintenance mode power (“Pm”), the measured standby power (“Psb”), the measured off mode power (“Poff”), the measured battery discharge energy (“EBatt”), and the measured 24-hour energy consumption (“E24”). These represented values would then be used, in conjunction with the proposed equations set forth in the battery chargers energy conservation standards NOPR,4 to calculate the unit energy consumption (“UEC”) for that battery charger basic model. UEC is designed to represent an annualized amount of non-useful energy consumed by a battery charger in all modes of operation over the course of a year.

    4 Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies; Proposed Rule, 77 FR 18478, 18522-24 (Mar. 27, 2012) (March 2012 NOPR).

    DOE received comments from the Joint Commenters, WAHL Clipper, and PTI/OPEI arguing that individual representations of five measures of energy and power (E24, Ebatt, Pm, Psb and Poff) are unduly burdensome on battery charger manufacturers and recommended that DOE require only a single representation of the UEC metric in the certification report. (Joint Commenters, No. 16, p. 4, WAHL Clipper, No. 18, p. 1, PTI/OPEI, No. 5, p. 3) Furthermore, the Joint Commenters argued that it is easier for manufacturers to make conservative representations in the context of a single energy consumption metric, as opposed to conservatively rating five measures of energy and power. (Joint Commenters, No. 16, p. 3)

    After considering the comments submitted by the Joint Commenters, WAHL Clipper, and PTI, DOE agrees that it is easier for manufacturers to make conservative representations in the context of an energy consumption metric, the UEC. Therefore, DOE is adopting only the requirement that manufacturers develop a UEC rating for that battery charger basic model according to the statistical requirements in 10 CFR 429.39(a), which allows for conservative ratings of UEC (in kWh/year) that are greater than the higher of the mean or the upper confidence limit divided by 1.05 for the UECs calculated for each unit in the compliance certification sample.

    In addition, in order to calculate the UEC for a battery charger basic model during compliance testing, DOE is adding the UEC equations and the associated battery charger usage profiles proposed in the September 1, 2015 battery charger energy conservation standards Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) 5 to section 5.13 of the battery charger test procedure codified at appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. In order to develop a UEC rating, a manufacturer will first need to calculate the UEC for each unit in the compliance certification sample of a battery charger basic model. For example, if a manufacturer sampled four units of a battery charger basic model, it would be required to calculate the UEC for each of those four units in the sample using the UEC equations in section 5.13 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, and then apply the statistical requirements in 10 CFR 429.39(a) in order to develop a rating of UEC for that battery charger basic model.

    5 Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers; Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 52849, 52932-33 (Sept. 1, 2015) (September 2015 SNOPR).

    Manufacturers will still be required to submit represented values of E24, Ebatt, Pm, Psb, Poff, and the duration of the charge and maintenance mode test (tcd) of a battery charger basic model as part of the compliance certification report; however, these represented values will now simply be the arithmetic mean of the measured values for each of these metrics from the units tested in the compliance certification sample. Reporting mean values of E24, Ebatt, Pm, Psb, Poff, and tcd on the certification report will not increase testing burden on manufacturers, as manufacturers will already be using these values to calculate each unit-specific UEC in order to develop UEC ratings. In addition to there being no additional testing burden, the reporting burden itself is limited to simply calculating averages for the six metrics already measured. Reporting represented values of E24, Ebatt, Pm, Psb, Poff and tcd in certification reports for battery chargers provides DOE with more accurate data on the six measured values of power, energy and time for basic models of battery chargers. Accordingly, DOE is revising 10 CFR 429.39(a) to reflect these statistical requirements for representing UEC, E24, Ebatt, Pm, Psb, Poff, and tcd for battery charger basic models.

    Second, DOE has received stakeholder comments on the sampling requirements that are already part of the current test procedure for battery chargers. JOME provided comments opposing the sampling requirements on the basis that these requirements increase the number of test units and, consequently, increase the time and costs associated with testing. (JOME, No. 2, p. 4) Schneider Electric also provided comments opposing the sampling requirements. Schneider Electric argued that because there is no documented case of market surveillance failure under the CEC efficiency standards for battery chargers and that manufacturers are ultimately responsible for compliance, DOE should allow manufacturers to define their own sampling plans. (Schneider Electric, No. 12, p. 5) Similarly, Delta-Q expressed concern that although the sampling plan sets the minimum number of samples to be tested per basic model to two units, the statistical approach of upper and lower confidence limits would require more than two units to be tested to account for variability, which imposes a cost and time burden on manufacturers. Delta-Q also expressed concern that if the same flooded lead acid battery is used to test all samples of a basic model of a lead acid battery charger, the high cycle-to-cycle variation of the flooded lead acid battery can have a negative impact on test results. Delta-Q sought clarification on whether the same battery would be used to test all samples of a basic model of a battery charger. (Delta-Q, No. 11, p. 3)

    DOE currently mandates sampling requirements to improve the statistical validity of representations made by manufacturers and to ensure products being distributed in commerce actually meet the applicable standard. Under DOE's sampling methodology, manufacturers may determine the number of samples tested as long as the sampling requirements adopted in this final rule are satisfied. To the extent that manufacturers commented that the sample size is required to be greater than two units, DOE believes it is appropriate for a manufacturer to test a sample of sufficient size to make a statistically valid assessment of the compliance of the basic model. Therefore, DOE believes that the sampling requirements for certification of battery chargers stated in 10 CFR 429.39 are appropriate and are not unduly burdensome. Regarding Delta-Q's question (i.e., whether the same battery is used for testing all samples of a basic model), DOE notes that each manufacturer must determine whether to test all samples of the same battery charger basic model with a single battery or with a new battery each time.

    Third, DOE received comments from the Joint Commenters and WAHL Clipper opposing the reporting of contract manufacturer names for their external power supplies (“EPSs”) and test batteries in certification reports. The Joint Commenters and WAHL Clipper recommended that DOE classify and treat manufacturers of EPSs and test batteries as confidential. (Joint Commenters, No. 16, p. 4, WAHL Clipper, No. 18, p. 1) Similarly, ITI argued for the exclusion of the manufacturer and model number of the test battery from certification reports (ITI, No. 17, pp. 5-6), and Schneider Electric inquired as to whether DOE can hold compliance certification reports of upcoming models confidential until the official launch of these models. (Schneider Electric, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, pp. 93-94).

    In response to the comments submitted by the Joint Commenters, WAHL Clipper and ITI, DOE acknowledges that publically disclosing the manufacturers and models of test batteries and external power supplies as part of the battery charger compliance certification reports might have a negative impact on competition. Therefore, DOE is revising the battery charger compliance certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.39(b) so that the manufacturers and models of test batteries and external power supplies are not included in the public disclosures in DOE's compliance certification database. Other than the manufacturer and model of test battery(s) and external power supply, all other product-specific information on a battery charger compliance certification report will be public. Further, in response to the comment submitted by Schneider Electric, DOE clarifies that the confidentiality provisions in 10 CFR 429.7 apply to this rulemaking. Manufacturers who want DOE to hold compliance certification reports of upcoming basic models confidential until the official launch of these basic models should refer to 10 CFR 429.7 for guidance regarding confidentiality. DOE also emphasizes that the manufacturers and models of test batteries and external power supplies will not be provided on the public CCMS database.

    Fourth, during the public meeting held to discuss the August 2015 NOPR, DOE received numerous comments inquiring about circumstances that will require manufacturers of battery chargers to recertify their basic models. WAHL Clipper inquired on whether recertification is necessary if a battery manufacturer is changed but battery characteristics remain the same. (WAHL Clipper, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, p. 83) DELL Inc. asked whether battery charger manufacturers would need to recertify their basic models if there is a change in battery model or part number due to minor improvements made by the battery manufacturer. (DELL Inc., Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, pp. 85-86) STIHL Inc. questioned whether basic models of battery chargers require recertification if a higher capacity battery that works with the battery charger is introduced into the market. (STIHL Inc., Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, p. 120) DELL Inc. further inquired whether an entire family of products would need to be recertified if one product in the family uses a new, improved battery. (DELL Inc., Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, p. 120-123)

    In response to the comments made by WAHL Clipper, DELL Inc. and STIHL Inc. regarding recertification, DOE notes that its existing regulations address when modifications require recertification. A modification to a model that increases the model's energy or water consumption or decreases its efficiency resulting in re-rating must be certified as a new basic model. 10 CFR 429.12(e)(1). If the design of the battery charger basic model, including the battery, has changed in such a way that the information certified to DOE would no longer be valid, then the manufacturer would be required to test and recertify its battery charger basic model. Recertification would not be necessary if changes to the design of the battery charger result in the UEC remaining below the rated value. Changes resulting in a new individual model in the basic model do not require additional testing but must be reported as part of the next annual certification report. 10 CFR 429.12(d).

    Fifth, DOE also received some general comments regarding the proposed sampling and certification requirements for battery chargers. PTI inquired if third-party laboratories are allowed to file for certification on behalf of manufacturers. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, pp. 126-27) Schneider Electric asked for clarification on how to certify in situations where the integrated battery does not have a nameplate. (Schneider Electric, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, pp. 88-89) NEMA recommended that DOE clearly state whether manufacturers can use an alternate efficiency determination method (“AEDM”) to certify battery chargers. (NEMA, No. 13, p. 4)

    DOE regulations require “manufacturers” (defined to include importers and U.S. manufacturers) of covered products that are subject to energy conservation standards to submit certification reports to DOE. The regulations also provide, however, that a manufacturer may elect to use a third party to submit the certification report to DOE. Nonetheless, the manufacturer is ultimately responsible for submission of the certification report to DOE. 10 CFR 429.12

    In response to Schneider Electric's comment regarding integrated batteries without a nameplate, DOE clarifies that manufacturers would still be required to disclose the battery specifications as part of the certification report even if the battery does not have a nameplate with rated values. It is DOE's understanding that manufacturers of battery chargers with integrated batteries are aware of the exact battery specifications as these specifications are crucial to their product design and intended use. DOE has added language in appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 to clarify that if these rated values are not clearly present on a nameplate or the manufacturer is not aware of the specifications, then the manufacturer must submit measured values. In particular, the manufacturer must measure and report, in place of the rated values, the nominal fully charged battery voltage of the test battery in volts (V), the battery charge capacity of the test battery in ampere-hours (Ah) as measured per this test procedure and the battery energy capacity of the test battery in watt-hours (Wh) as measured per this test procedure.

    In response to NEMA's comment regarding AEDMs, DOE authorizes the use of AEDMs for certain covered products that are difficult or expensive to test in an effort to reduce the testing burden faced by manufacturers of expensive or highly customized basic models. DOE's analysis has shown that battery chargers are neither difficult nor expensive to test. Therefore, DOE is not including any provisions allowing manufacturers to use an AEDM for compliance certification in this test procedure final rule.

    F. Enforcement Testing Sampling Plan

    DOE proposed to add appendix D to subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 to describe the methodology that DOE would use when conducting enforcement testing for battery chargers. 80 FR at 46868. DOE received comments from the Joint Commenters and PTI/OPEI inquiring if DOE had unintentionally left out the standard error of the measured energy performance, as described in appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 429. The Joint Commenters and PTI/OPEI both argued for the inclusion of the standard error of the measured energy performance in the battery charger test procedure final rule. (Joint Commenters, No. 16, pp. 4-5, PTI/OPEI, No. 14, p. 3) iRobot recommended that DOE adopt the proposed enforcement rules and further recommended that DOE only use enforcement data to establish if a basic model meets the applicable standard. iRobot requested that, if DOE is planning on using enforcement data to check represented values in the compliance certification, DOE explain the exact method of comparison to be used in an additional NOPR and grant stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the exact method of comparison. (iRobot, No. 7, p. 3) Similarly, ITI argued that DOE should not use enforcement data to check values that do not have limits assigned in the applicable energy conservation standards. (ITI, No. 17, p. 5) Additionally, NRDC, et al. expressed concern that if DOE were to use enforcement data to check representations of E24, EBatt, Pm, Psb and Poff, then manufacturers will be encouraged to report non-typical values of these measures, which will not be representative of reality. (NRDC, et al., Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, pp. 110-11)

    As discussed in section III.E above, battery charger manufacturers will be required to certify the UEC metric, which will be calculated according to the primary or secondary equation in section 5.13 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, for each battery charger basic model, and according to the statistical requirements at 10 CFR 429.39(a). Additionally, manufacturers of battery chargers will be required to certify values for E24, EBatt, Pm, Psb, Poff and tcd, each of which is simply the arithmetic mean of the measured values from the units tested. In light of the discussion in section III.E, DOE's proposal in the August 2015 NOPR to add appendix D to 10 CFR part 429 subpart C is no longer necessary. DOE will instead continue to follow the sampling plan for enforcement testing already stated in appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 for battery chargers. In response to comments from the Joint Commenters and PTI, appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 includes the standard error for the measured energy performance.

    Additionally, PTI inquired whether a value of UEC calculated during enforcement testing, which is below the applicable energy conservation standard but above the represented value in a compliance certification, is a case of noncompliance. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, pp. 81-82) iRobot and Schneider Electric recommended that DOE provide manufacturers access to units that fail enforcement testing. (iRobot, No. 7, p. 3, Schneider Electric, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 4, p. 109)

    If DOE conducts enforcement testing, appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 sets forth the method for determining whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation standard. If, during testing, DOE finds that the measured UEC is above the certified value, DOE typically investigates the reason for the discrepancy. Depending on the circumstances, DOE may seek civil penalties, as knowing misrepresentation by a manufacturer by certifying a value for a covered product in a manner that is not supported by test data is a prohibited act. 10 CFR 429.102. Units provided by the manufacturer for enforcement testing are returned to the manufacturer after the enforcement case is closed.

    Further, DOE received comments from P. R. China requesting that DOE clarify the sample size to be used during enforcement testing and whether different sample sizes will be used for different manufacturers. (P. R. China, No. 5, p. 3) For enforcement testing of battery chargers, the initial sample size is four units. DOE may test up to 21 units, in accordance with the provisions of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 429.

    G. Corrections to Typographical Errors

    In this test procedure final rule, DOE is updating Table 3.1 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 to correct cross-reference errors and eliminate a redundant column. The “Battery Discharge Energy” item on the second line in this table currently references section 4.6, when it should instead reference section 5.8, “Battery Discharge Energy Test”. The “Initial time and power (W) of the input current to the connected battery” item on the third line in this table currently references section 4.6, when it should instead reference section 5.6, “Testing Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode.” The “Active and Maintenance Mode Energy Consumption” item on the fourth line in this table currently references section 5.8, when it should instead reference section 5.6, “Testing Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode.” Therefore, DOE is updating the second, third and fourth items in the “Reference” column of Table 3.1 to state “Section 5.8”, “Section 5.6” and “Section 5.6,” respectively. Additionally, DOE is removing the current “Value” column from Table 3.1 because the information from this column is being inserted in the column labeled “Name of measured or calculated value” to reduce complexity. DOE is also replacing “0.2 °C” in section 5.8(c)(2) of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 with “0.2 C” to correct a typographical error. The section covers discharge current during a battery discharge energy test and C-rate (“C”) is the correct measurement unit for discharge current.

    Additionally, DOE is revising the definition of C-rate in section 2.10 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 by adding “(C)” as a unit for C-rate. DOE believes this will further reduce the possibility of any ambiguity associated with interpreting the test procedure. The revised definition reads “C-rate (C) is the rate of charge or discharge, calculated by dividing the charge or discharge current by the rate charge capacity of the battery.”

    Lastly, DOE is renaming “rated battery voltage”, “rated charge capacity” and “rated energy capacity”, which are defined at sections 2.19, 2.20 and 2.21 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, as “nameplate battery voltage”, “nameplate battery charge capacity”, and “nameplate battery energy capacity,” respectively, throughout the battery charger test procedure codified at appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. The revised names will reduce the possibility of confusion between nameplate values and rated values submitted by manufacturers as part of compliance certification reports.

    H. Limiting Other Non-Battery-Charger Functions

    DOE received comments from iRobot recommending specific language changes in the current test procedure for battery chargers. First, iRobot recommended that DOE remove the word “optional” from section 4.4(b) of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 to eliminate ambiguity. Second, iRobot recommended replacing “manual” with “user-accessible” in section 4.4(d) of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. (iRobot, No. 7, pp. 1-2) DOE notes that the word “optional” in section 4.4(b) of the current test procedure highlights that any additional functionality not associated with battery charging should be turned off prior to testing. As a result, only the battery charging portion of the battery charger is measured during testing. Similarly, while conducting the test procedure for battery chargers, a technician may have the option of turning off a manual switch that is not user-accessible to limit any optional functions that are not associated with the battery charging process. Therefore, replacing the word “manual” with “user-accessible,” as recommended by iRobot, would further reduce the avenues available to manufacturers to limit non-battery charger related functions, which would likely result in DOE receiving a number of test procedure waiver inquiries. After careful consideration, DOE is not changing the language recommended by iRobot in section 4.4 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

    I. Discharging Lithium Ion Batteries

    DOE received comments from NEMA describing the difficulties with discharging lithium ion batteries to the end of the discharge voltages specified in Table 5.2. NEMA explained that some batteries have internal protections that prevent batteries from being discharged to such low levels. NEMA recommended that DOE allow manufacturers to end discharge tests at voltages specified by the manufacturer, which can be higher than those listed in Table 5.2. (NEMA, No. 13, p. 4) DOE understands the need for protective circuitry in certain volatile battery chemistries and has acknowledged the presence of protective circuitry in section 4.5(e) of the current battery chargers test procedure, published at appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. In response to the comment from NEMA, DOE is updating Table 5.2 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 to further state that if the presence of protective circuitry in a lithium ion battery prevents the battery from being discharged to the end of the discharge voltage specified, then the manufacturer must discharge the battery to the lowest possible discharge voltage permitted by the protective circuity and report the end of the discharge voltage on the certification report.

    IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB.

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996) requires preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

    This final rule prescribes amendments to the battery charger test procedure. These amendments update the battery selection criteria for multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers, harmonize the instrumentation resolution and uncertainty requirements with the second edition of the IEC 62301 standard for measuring standby power, define and exclude back-up battery chargers from the testing requirements of this rulemaking, outline provisions for conditioning lead acid batteries, specify sampling and certification requirements for compliance with future energy conservation standards, detail an enforcement testing sampling plan for battery chargers, and correct typographical errors in the current test procedure.

    DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and DOE's own procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE has concluded that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.

    The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. These size standards and codes are established by the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”). The threshold number for NAICS classification code 335999, which applies to “All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing,” and includes battery chargers, is 500 employees.

    As discussed in the March 2012 NOPR for battery charger energy conservation standards (77 FR 18478), DOE identified one battery charger original device manufacturer that was a small business with domestic manufacturing. Based on manufacturer interviews and DOE's research, DOE believes that almost all battery charger manufacturing takes place abroad.

    DOE estimates that this one small business may have to purchase testing equipment and have employees perform tests on covered battery chargers in order to comply with test procedures required from the adopted test procedure. DOE estimates a small business would need to purchase a computer with data acquisition software, battery analyzer, battery analyzer amplifier, power meter, interface cable, and single phase AC power source. DOE estimates this equipment would cost approximately $10,000 to $12,000.

    DOE estimated the necessary labor associated with performing the adopted test procedure to a single covered battery charger. DOE estimates that it would likely take between 80 and 115 hours to perform the test procedure on a single model. To get the labor rate of an employee to perform these test DOE used the median hourly wage of an electrical technician, $28.76.6 DOE adjusted the hourly wage by 23 percent 7 to account for the total fringe benefits, resulting in an estimated total hourly rate of $35.37. Therefore, DOE estimates a total labor burden of between $2,830 and $4,068 to test for each covered product.

    6 Taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2014 (17-3023 Electrical and Electronics Engineering Technicians). http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173023.htm.

    7 This is based on the ratio of total fringe benefits compared to the annual payroll taken from the 2014 Annual Survey of Manufacturers for NAICS code 335999. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ASM_2014_31GS101&prodType=table.

    DOE estimates that the one small businesses will need to test 41 models to comply with the adopted battery charger test procedure. This means the small business' total labor burden would be between $116,030 and $166,788 to test all their covered battery chargers to the adopted test procedure. Therefore, DOE's total testing burden, labor burden and testing equipment, is estimated at between $126,030 and $178,788.

    Therefore, DOE certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE has submitted a certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    If DOE adopts the energy conservation standards proposed in the September 1, 2016, battery chargers energy conservation standards Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR), manufacturers of battery chargers will be required to certify that their products comply with those standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the applicable DOE test procedure, including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, and is finalizing specific requirements for battery chargers in this rule. See 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. This information collection was renewed in January 2015 to include certification requirements for battery chargers. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 2015). Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per respondent per year, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

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

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for battery chargers, which will likely be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for battery chargers. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this final rule amends the existing test procedure without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environment impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the action is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.

    The final rule incorporates testing methods contained in the following commercial standards: IEC Standard 62301 “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power.” DOE has evaluated these testing standards and believes that the IEC standard complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE has, however, consulted with the Attorney General and the Chairwoman of FTC concerning the effect on competition of requiring manufacturers to use the test method in this standard.

    M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    N. Description of Material Incorporated by Reference

    DOE previously adopted instrumentation resolution and measurement uncertainty requirements for testing battery chargers identical to those in the IEC 62301 standard and codified these requirements at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Y on June 1, 2011. 76 FR 31750. The IEC published Edition 2.0 of IEC 62301 in January 2011, which is available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036 or at http://webstore.ansi.org/. This revised version of the testing standard refined the test equipment specifications, measuring techniques, and uncertainty determination to improve the method for measuring loads with high crest factors and/or low power factors, such as the low power modes typical of battery chargers operating in standby mode. These provisions were contained in section 4 of IEC 62301, with informative guidance provided in Annex B and Annex D on measuring low power modes and determining measurement uncertainty. DOE has already incorporated by reference Edition 2.0 of IEC 62301 in 10 CFR part 430 for use with other test procedures, and is now incorporating by reference Edition 2.0 in appendix Y as well.

    V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

    List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 429

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is amending parts 429 and 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 429—CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

    2. Revise § 429.39 to read as follows:
    § 429.39 Battery chargers.

    (a) Determination of represented values. Manufacturers must determine represented values, which include certified ratings, for each basic model of battery charger in accordance with the following sampling provisions.

    (1) Represented values include: the unit energy consumption (UEC) in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr), battery discharge energy (Ebatt) in watt-hours (Wh), 24-hour energy consumption (E24) in watt-hours (Wh), maintenance mode power (Pm) in watts (W), standby mode power (Psb) in watts (W), off mode power (Poff) in watts (W), and duration of the charge and maintenance mode test (tcd) in hours (hrs).

    (2) Units to be tested. (i) The general requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to battery chargers; and

    (ii) For each basic model, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that the represented value of UEC is greater than or equal to the higher of:

    (A) The mean of the sample, where:

    ER20MY16.160 and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and x i is the UEC of the ith sample or,

    (B) The upper 97.5-percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.05, where:

    ER20MY16.161 and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and t 0.975 is the t-statistic for a 97.5-percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from appendix A of this subpart).

    (3) Using the sample from paragraph (a)(2) of this section, calculate the represented values of each metric (i.e., maintenance mode power (Pm), standby power (Psb), off mode power (Poff), battery discharge energy (EBatt), 24-hour energy consumption (E24), and duration of the charge and maintenance mode test (tcd)), where:

    ER20MY16.162 and, is x is the metric, the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and x i is the measured value of the ith sample for the metric x.

    (b) Certification reports. (1) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to battery chargers.

    (2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report must include the following product-specific information: The nameplate battery voltage of the test battery in volts (V), the nameplate battery charge capacity of the test battery in ampere-hours (Ah), and the nameplate battery energy capacity of the test battery in watt-hours (Wh). A certification report must also include the represented values, as determined in paragraph (a) of this section for the maintenance mode power (Pm), standby mode power (Psb), off mode power (Poff), battery discharge energy (Ebatt), 24-hour energy consumption (E24), duration of the charge and maintenance mode test (tcd), and unit energy consumption (UEC).

    (3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report must include the following product-specific information: The manufacturer and model of the test battery, and the manufacturer and model, when applicable, of the external power supply.

    3. Revise paragraph (e) of § 429.110 to read as follows:
    § 429.110 Enforcement testing.

    (e) Basic model compliance. DOE will evaluate whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation standard(s) based on testing conducted in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in parts 430 and 431 of this chapter, and with the following statistical sampling procedures:

    (1) For products with applicable energy conservation standard(s) in § 430.32 of this chapter, and commercial prerinse spray valves, illuminated exit signs, traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules, commercial clothes washers, and metal halide lamp ballasts, DOE will use a sample size of not more than 21 units and follow the sampling plans in appendix A of this subpart (Sampling for Enforcement Testing of Covered Consumer Products and Certain High-Volume Commercial Equipment).

    (2) For automatic commercial ice makers; commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; refrigerated bottled or canned vending machines; commercial air conditioners and heat pumps; commercial packaged boilers; commercial warm air furnaces; and commercial water heating equipment, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more than four units and follow the sampling plans in appendix B of this subpart (Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing of Covered Equipment and Certain Low-Volume Covered Products).

    (3) If fewer than four units of a basic model are available for testing (under paragraphs (e)(1) or (2) of this section) when the manufacturer receives the notice, then:

    (i) DOE will test the available unit(s); or

    (ii) If one or more other units of the basic model are expected to become available within 30 calendar days, DOE may instead, at its discretion, test either:

    (A) The available unit(s) and one or more of the other units that subsequently become available (up to a maximum of four); or

    (B) Up to four of the other units that subsequently become available.

    (4) For distribution transformers, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more than five units and follow the sampling plans in appendix C of this subpart (Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing of Distribution Transformers). If fewer than five units of a basic model are available for testing when the manufacturer receives the test notice, then:

    (i) DOE will test the available unit(s); or

    (ii) If one or more other units of the basic model are expected to become available within 30 calendar days, DOE may instead, at its discretion, test either:

    (A) The available unit(s) and one or more of the other units that subsequently become available (up to a maximum of five); or

    (B) Up to five of the other units that subsequently become available.

    (5) For pumps, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more than four units and will determine compliance based on the arithmetic mean of the sample.

    (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section, if testing of the available or subsequently available units of a basic model would be impractical, as for example when a basic model has unusual testing requirements or has limited production, DOE may in its discretion decide to base the determination of compliance on the testing of fewer than the otherwise required number of units.

    (7) When DOE makes a determination in accordance with paragraph (e)(6) to test less than the number of units specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section, DOE will base the compliance determination on the results of such testing in accordance with appendix B of this subpart (Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing of Covered Equipment and Certain Low-Volume Covered Products) using a sample size (n1) equal to the number of units tested.

    (8) For the purposes of this section, available units are those that are available for distribution in commerce within the United States.

    PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 4. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    5. In § 430.2 add in alphabetical order the definition of “Back-up battery charger” to read as follows:
    § 430.2 Definitions.

    Back-up battery charger means a battery charger excluding UPSs:

    (1) That is embedded in a separate end-use product that is designed to continuously operate using mains power (including end-use products that use external power supplies); and

    (2) Whose sole purpose is to recharge a battery used to maintain continuity of power in order to provide normal or partial operation of a product in case of input power failure.

    § 430.3 [Amended]
    6. In § 430.3, paragraph (p)(5) is amended by removing “and Z of subpart B” and adding in its place “, Y, and Z of subpart B”.
    7. In § 430.23, revise paragraph (aa) to read as follows:
    § 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption.

    (aa) Battery Chargers. (1) Measure the maintenance mode power, standby power, off mode power, battery discharge energy, 24-hour energy consumption and measured duration of the charge and maintenance mode test for a battery charger in accordance with appendix Y to this subpart.

    (2) Calculate the unit energy consumption of a battery charger in accordance with appendix Y to this subpart.

    8. Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by: a. Revising the introductory text to appendix Y; b. Revising section 1, Scope; c. Revising sections 2.10, 2.17, 2.19, 2.20 and 2.21; d. Revising Table 3.1 and section 3.2; e. Revising the undesignated center heading directly above section 4.1. General Setup; f. Revising sections 4.3.b. and 4.3c. and Table 4.1; g. Revising sections 5.1, 5.3.a., 5.3.d., 5.8.c.(2), and Table 5.2; and h. Adding a new section 5.13, Unit Energy Consumption Calculation.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers

    Prior to November 16, 2016, manufacturers must make any representations regarding the energy consumption of battery chargers based upon results generated under this appendix or the previous version of this appendix as it appeared in the Code of Federal Regulations on January 1, 2016. On or after November 16, 2016, manufacturers must make any representations regarding the energy consumption of battery chargers based upon results generated under this appendix.

    1. Scope

    This appendix provides the test requirements used to measure the energy consumption for battery chargers operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage (115V at 60Hz). This appendix does not provide a method for testing back-up battery chargers or uninterruptable power supplies.

    2. * * *

    2.10. C-Rate (C) is the rate of charge or discharge, calculated by dividing the charge or discharge current by the nameplate battery charge capacity of the battery.

    2.17. Multi-voltage charger is a battery charger that, by design, can charge a variety of batteries (or batches of batteries, if also a batch charger) that are of different nameplate battery voltages. A multi-voltage charger can also be a multi-port charger if it can charge two or more batteries simultaneously with independent voltages and/or current regulation.

    2.19. Nameplate battery voltage is specified by the battery manufacturer and typically printed on the label of the battery itself. If there are multiple batteries that are connected in series, the nameplate battery voltage of the batteries is the total voltage of the series configuration—that is, the nameplate voltage of each battery multiplied by the number of batteries connected in series. Connecting multiple batteries in parallel does not affect the nameplate battery voltage.

    2.20. Nameplate battery charge capacity is the capacity, claimed by the battery manufacturer on a label or in instructions, that the battery can store, usually given in ampere-hours (Ah) or milliampere-hours (mAh) and typically printed on the label of the battery itself. If there are multiple batteries that are connected in parallel, the nameplate battery charge capacity of the batteries is the total charge capacity of the parallel configuration, that is, the nameplate charge capacity of each battery multiplied by the number of batteries connected in parallel. Connecting multiple batteries in series does not affect the nameplate charge capacity.

    2.21. Nameplate battery energy capacity means the product (in watts-hours (Wh)) of the nameplate battery voltage and the nameplate battery charge capacity.

    3. * * *

    Table 3.1—List of Measured or Calculated Values Name of measured or calculated value Reference 1. Duration of the charge and maintenance mode test, tcd (hrs) Section 5.2. 2. Battery Discharge Energy, EBatt (Wh) Section 5.8. 3. Initial time and power (W) of the input current of connected battery (A) Section 5.6. 4. Active and Maintenance Mode Energy Consumption (W, hrs) Section 5.6. 5. Maintenance Mode Power, Pm (W) Section 5.9. 6. 24 Hour Energy Consumption, E24 (Wh) Section 5.10. 7. Standby Mode Power, Psb (W) Section 5.11. 8. Off Mode Power, Poff (W) Section 5.12. 9. Unit Energy Consumption, UEC (kWh/yr) Section 5.13.

    3.2. Verifying Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment

    Any power measurement equipment utilized for testing must conform to the uncertainty and resolution requirements outlined in section 4, “General conditions for measurements”, as well as annexes B, “Notes on the measurement of low power modes”, and D, “Determination of uncertainty of measurement”, of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3).

    4. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements

    4.3. * * *

    b. From the detachable batteries specified above, use Table 4.1 to select the batteries to be used for testing, depending on the type of battery charger being tested. The battery charger types represented by the rows in the table are mutually exclusive. Find the single applicable row for the UUT, and test according to those requirements. Select only the single battery configuration specified for the battery charger type in Table 4.1.

    If the battery selection criteria specified in Table 4.1 results in two or more batteries or configurations of batteries of different chemistries, but with equal voltage and capacity ratings, determine the maintenance mode power, as specified in section 5.9, for each of the batteries or configurations of batteries, and select for testing the battery or configuration of batteries with the highest maintenance mode power.

    c. A charger is considered as:

    (1) Single-capacity if all associated batteries have the same nameplate battery charge capacity (see definition) and, if it is a batch charger, all configurations of the batteries have the same nameplate battery charge capacity.

    (2) Multi-capacity if there are associated batteries or configurations of batteries that have different nameplate battery charge capacities.

    Table 4.1—Battery Selection for Testing Type of charger Multi-voltage Multi-port Multi-
  • capacity
  • Battery or configuration of batteries to select (from all configurations of all associated batteries)
    No No No Any associated battery. No No Yes Highest charge capacity battery. No Yes Yes or No Use all ports. Use the maximum number of identical batteries with the highest nameplate battery charge capacity that the charger can accommodate. Yes No No Highest voltage battery. Yes Yes to either or both Use all ports. Use the battery or configuration of batteries with the highest individual voltage. If multiple batteries meet this criteria, then use the battery or configuration of batteries with the highest total nameplate battery charge capacity at the highest individual voltage.

    5. * * *

    5.1. Recording General Data on the UUT

    The technician must record:

    (1) The manufacturer and model of the battery charger;

    (2) The presence and status of any additional functions unrelated to battery charging;

    (3) The manufacturer, model, and number of batteries in the test battery;

    (4) The nameplate battery voltage of the test battery;

    (5) The nameplate battery charge capacity of the test battery; and

    (6) The nameplate battery energy capacity of the test battery.

    (7) The settings of the controls, if the battery charger has user controls to select from two or more charge rates.

    5.3. * * *

    a. No conditioning is to be done on lithium-ion batteries. Proceed directly to battery preparation, section 5.4, when testing chargers for these batteries.

    d. Batteries of chemistries, other than lithium-ion, that are known to have been through at least two previous full charge/discharge cycles must only be charged once per step c.(5) of this section.

    5.8. * * *

    c. * * *

    (2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant discharge rate and the end-of-discharge voltage in Table 5.2 of this appendix for the relevant battery chemistry.

    5.10. * * *

    Table 5.2—Required Battery Discharge Rates and End-of-Discharge Battery Voltages Battery
  • chemistry
  • Discharge rate
  • C
  • End-of-
  • discharge voltage *
  • volts per cell
  • Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) 0.2 1.75 Flooded Lead Acid 0.2 1.70 Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) 0.2 1.0 Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) 0.2 1.0 Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) 0.2 2.5 Lithium Polymer 0.2 2.5 Rechargeable Alkaline 0.2 0.9 Nanophosphate Lithium Ion 0.2 2.0 Silver Zinc 0.2 1.2 * If the presence of protective circuitry prevents the battery cells from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage specified, then discharge battery cells to the lowest possible voltage permitted by the protective circuitry.

    5.13. Unit Energy Consumption Calculation

    Calculate unit energy consumption (UEC) for a battery charger using one of the two equations (equation (i) or equation (ii)) listed below. If a battery charger is tested and its charge duration as determined in section 5.2 of this appendix minus 5 hours is greater than the threshold charge time listed in table 5.3 below (i.e. (tcd−5) * n > ta&m), use equation (ii) to calculate UEC; otherwise calculate the battery charger's UEC using equation (i).

    ER20MY16.163 Where: E24 = 24-hour energy as determined in section 5.10 of this appendix, Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 5.8 of this appendix, Pm = Maintenance mode power as determined in section 5.9 of this appendix, Psb = Standby mode power as determined in section 5.11 of this appendix, Poff = Off mode power as determined in section 5.12 of this appendix, tcd = Charge test duration as determined in section 5.2 of this appendix, and ta&m, n, tsb, and toff, are constants used depending upon a device's product class and found in the following table: Table 5.3—Battery Charger Usage Profiles Product class No. Description Rated battery
  • energy
  • (Ebatt) **
  • Special
  • characteristic
  • or battery voltage
  • Hours per day *** Active + maintenance
  • (ta&m)
  • Standby
  • (tsb)
  • Off
  • (toff)
  • Charges
  • (n)
  • Number per day Threshold charge time * Hours
    1 Low-Energy ≤5 Wh Inductive Connection **** 20.66 0.10 0.00 0.15 137.73 2 Low-Energy, Low-Voltage <100 Wh <4 V 7.82 5.29 0.00 0.54 14.48 3 Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage 4-10 V 6.42 0.30 0.00 0.10 64.20 4 Low-Energy, High-Voltage >10 V 16.84 0.91 0.00 0.50 33.68 5 Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage 100-3000 Wh <20 V 6.52 1.16 0.00 0.11 59.27 6 Medium-Energy, High-Voltage ≥20 V 17.15 6.85 0.00 0.34 50.44 7 High-Energy >3000 Wh 8.14 7.30 0.00 0.32 25.44 * If the duration of the charge test (minus 5 hours) as determined in section 5.2 of appendix Y to subpart B of this part exceeds the threshold charge time, use equation (ii) to calculate UEC otherwise use equation (i). ** Ebatt = Rated battery energy as determined in 10 CFR part 429.39(a). *** If the total time does not sum to 24 hours per day, the remaining time is allocated to unplugged time, which means there is 0 power consumption and no changes to the UEC calculation needed. **** Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g. electric toothbrushes).
    [FR Doc. 2016-11486 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0006; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-147-AD; Amendment 39-18519; AD 2016-10-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by the results of endurance qualification tests on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA), which revealed a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency in specific load conditions. This AD requires inspecting certain THSAs to determine the number of total flight cycles the THSA has accumulated, and replacing the THSA if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct premature wear of the carbon friction disks on the NBB of the THSA. Such a condition could lead to reduced braking efficiency in certain load conditions and, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear train to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could result in uncommanded movements of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) and loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 24, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.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-2014-0006.

    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-2014-0006; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79738) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2014 (79 FR 6104) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require inspecting certain THSAs to determine the number of total flight cycles the THSA has accumulated, and replacing the THSA if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by the results of endurance qualification tests on the THSA, which revealed a partial loss of the NBB efficiency in specific load conditions. The SNPRM proposed to revise the NPRM by adding airplanes to the proposed applicability, reducing the proposed compliance times for replacing affected TSHAs, and revising the definition of a serviceable THSA. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct premature wear of the carbon friction disks on the NBB of the THSA. Such a condition could lead to reduced braking efficiency in certain load conditions and, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear train to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could result in uncommanded movements of the THS and loss of control of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0257R1, dated May 29, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During endurance qualification tests on Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA) of another Airbus aeroplane type, a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency was experienced. Due to THSA design similarity on the A330/A340 fleet, a similar partial loss of the NBB efficiency was identified on THSA Part Number (P/N) 47147 as installed on A330-300 and A340-200/-300 aeroplanes, on THSA P/N 47172 as installed on A330-200/-300 and A340-200/-300 aeroplanes, and on THSA P/N 47175 as installed on A340-500/600 aeroplanes.

    Investigation results concluded that this partial loss of braking efficiency in some specific aerodynamic load conditions was due to polishing and auto-contamination of the NBB carbon friction disks.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected and in conjunction with the power gear train not able to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to uncommanded movements of the THS, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-0144 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2013_0144.zip/AD_2013-0144R1_2] to require replacement of each THSA that has exceeded 16,000 flight cycles (FC) in service, to be sent in shop for NBB carbon disk replacement.

    Since that AD was issued, a need for clarification has been demonstrated, regarding the identification of the THSA `affected' by this requirement.

    For this reason, EASA AD 2013-0144 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2013_0144.zip/AD_2013-0144R1_2] was revised, confirming that this AD only affected those THSA identified by Part Number (P/N) in Airbus Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A27L005-13. In addition, a note was added to make clear that the life limits as specified in the current revision of ALS Part 4 are still relevant for the affected THSA, as applicable to aeroplane model and THSA P/N.

    Since EASA AD 2013-0144R1 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2013-0144R1] was issued, further assessment of the ageing/endurance issue has resulted in the conclusion that there is a need to replace the NBB installed on the THSA.

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0257 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_2014_0257_R1.pdf/AD_2014-0257R1_1] which retained the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0144R1, which was superseded, and required removal from service of affected THSA. THSA should be sent in shop for NBB carbon disk replacement. This [EASA] AD affected additional THSA P/Ns when compared to EASA AD 2013-0144R1 and Airbus AOT A27L005-13.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that it is necessary to consider that the THSA removal for NBB disks replacement could also be calculated since last NBB disk replacement which was done in-shop.

    This AD also adds Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes to the applicability. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0006. Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information, all dated July 15, 2014.

    • Service Bulletin A330-27-3199 (for Model A330 series airplanes);

    • Service Bulletin A340-27-4190 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes); and

    • Service Bulletin A340-27-5062 (for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes).

    The service information describes procedures for inspecting the THSA to determine the part number and replacing THSAs having certain part numbers with a new or serviceable part. 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 94 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $23,970

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement 23 work-hour × $85 per hour = $1,955 $722,556 $724,511
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-10-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18519. Docket No. FAA-2014-0006; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-147-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (4) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

    (5) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

    (6) Model A340-541 airplanes.

    (7) Model A340-642 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the results of endurance qualification tests on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA), which revealed a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency in specific load conditions. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct premature wear of the carbon friction disks on the NBB of the THSA. Such a condition could lead to reduced braking efficiency in certain load conditions and, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear train to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could result in uncommanded movements of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection To Determine THSA Part Number and Accumulated Total Flight Cycles

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the THSA to determine if it has a part number that is specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, and to determine the total number of flight cycles accumulated since the THSA's first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement. A review of airplane delivery or maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the THSA can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (1) For Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes: Part number (P/N) 47147-500, 47147-700, 47172-300, 47172-500, 47172-510, or 47172-520.

    (2) For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: P/N 47175-200, 47175-300, 47175-500, or 47175-520.

    (h) THSA Replacement for Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes

    For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes having a THSA with a part number specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, replace each affected THSA with a serviceable THSA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3199, dated July 15, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4190, dated July 15, 2014; as applicable.

    Note 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD:

    The THSA life limits specified in Part 4—Aging System Maintenance of the Airbus A330 and A340 Airworthiness Limitations Sections are still relevant, as applicable to airplane model and THSA part number.

    (1) For a THSA that has accumulated or exceeded 20,000 total flight cycles since the THSA's first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For a THSA that has accumulated or exceeded 16,000 total flight cycles, but less than 20,000 total flight cycles since the THSA's first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later, as of the effective date of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, and A330-300 series airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD but without exceeding 20,000 total flight cycles.

    (ii) For Model A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD but without exceeding 20,000 total flight cycles.

    (3) For a THSA that has accumulated less than 16,000 total flight cycles since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later, as of the effective date of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (i) Replacement Times for Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes With THSAs Having Less Than 16,000 Total Flight Cycles as of the Effective Date of This AD

    The requirements of this paragraph apply to Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes having a THSA with a part number specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD that has accumulated less than 16,000 total flight cycles since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later, as of the effective date of this AD. Not later than the date specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable: For any THSA having reached or exceeded on that date the corresponding number of total flight cycles as specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, replace the THSA with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3199, dated July 15, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4190, dated July 15, 2014; as applicable.

    (1) As of 12 months after the effective date of this AD: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever occurs later) is 16,000 total flight cycles.

    (2) As of July 31, 2017: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever occurs later) is 14,000 total flight cycles.

    (3) As of July 31, 2018: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever occurs later) is 12,000 total flight cycles.

    (j) THSA Replacement for Airbus Model A340-500 and -600 Series Airplanes

    For Airbus Model A340-500 and A340-600 series airplanes having a THSA with a part number specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Not later than the date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), and (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable, for any THSA having reached or exceeded on that date the corresponding number of total flight cycles as specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), and (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable, replace each affected THSA with a serviceable THSA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5062, dated July 15, 2014.

    (1) As of the effective date of this AD: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever occurs later) is 6,000 total flight cycles.

    (2) As of April 30, 2017: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever occurs later) is 5,200 total flight cycles.

    (3) As of April 30, 2018: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever occurs later) is 4,400 total flight cycles.

    (4) As of April 30, 2019: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever occurs later) is 3,500 total flight cycles.

    (k) THSA Replacement Intervals for All Airbus Airplanes Identified in Paragraph (c) of This AD

    For any part installed, as required by this AD, having a part number identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: From the dates specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, as applicable, and prior to exceeding the accumulated number of total flight cycles corresponding to each time, replace each affected THSA with a serviceable part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3199, dated July 15, 2014.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4190, dated July 15, 2014.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5062, dated July 15, 2014.

    (l) Definition of Serviceable THSA

    For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable THSA is a THSA:

    (1) Having a part number identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD that has not exceeded any of the total accumulated flight cycles identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD, or paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable; or

    (2) Having a part number that is not identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

    (m) Parts Installation Limitation

    From each date specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, and paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable, a THSA having a part number identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD may be installed on any airplane, provided the THSA has not exceeded the corresponding number of accumulated total flight cycles.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (o) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0257R1, dated May 29, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0006.

    (p) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3199, dated July 15, 2014.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4190, dated July 15, 2014.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5062, dated July 15, 2014.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) 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.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11575 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-6548; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-114-AD; Amendment 39-18520; AD 2016-10-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes equipped with General Electric engines. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in barrel nuts on a forward engine mount of Model 747-8 airplanes, which shares a similar design to the forward engine mount of Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, replacement of the four barrel nuts of the forward engine mount on each engine. For certain other airplanes, this AD requires an inspection to determine if any forward engine mount barrel nut having a certain part number is installed; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward engine mount barrel nuts. Such cracking could result in reduced load capacity of the forward engine mount and could result in separation of an engine from the airplane and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 24, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 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-2015-6548.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-6548; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6487; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes equipped with General Electric engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2015 (80 FR 76878) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in barrel nuts on a forward engine mount of Model 747-8 airplanes, which shares a similar design to the forward engine mount of Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, replacement of the four barrel nuts of the forward engine mount on each engine. For certain other airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine if any forward engine mount barrel nut having a certain part number is installed; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward engine mount barrel nuts. Such cracking could result in reduced load capacity of the forward engine mount and could result in separation of an engine from the airplane and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    Comments

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

    Request To Revise the Compliance Time

    United Airlines requested that the compliance time in the NPRM for Group 1 airplanes be changed from 2 years to “at next engine change.” United considered the proposed compliance time to be “expedited” because it took Boeing 7 months to publish the service information operators would be required to use to comply with the requirements in the NPRM, and it took the FAA 6 months to publish the NPRM. The commenter reasoned that since it took over 1 year from the time a solution for the unsafe condition was identified to the publication of the NPRM, the timeline for completing the corrective action is not critical and could be accomplished at the next scheduled engine change. United Airlines explained that allowing operators to replace the forward barrel nuts at the next engine change would reduce the cost of compliance to zero and would not add additional burden to operators.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation for an appropriate compliance time, the time required for the rulemaking process, and the practical aspect of doing the required replacement within an interval of time that corresponds to the typical scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the forward engine mount barrel nuts with new, improved barrel nuts; doing an inspection to determine if barrel nuts having a certain part number are installed on the forward engine mount; and doing related investigative and corrective actions. 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 36 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Replacement (2 engines) 29 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,465 for 2 engines $1,988 per engine × 2 engines = $3,976 $6,441 $64,410 (10 airplanes). Inspection for part number using maintenance records (2 engines) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 for 2 engines $0 85 $2,210 (26 airplanes).

    We estimate the following costs to do any related investigative actions required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Inspection (2 engines) 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 for 2 engines $0 $765

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions specified in this AD.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-10-09 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18520; Docket No. FAA-2015-6548; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-114-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 24, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with General Electric GEnx-1B engines, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in barrel nuts on a forward engine mount of Model 747-8 airplanes, which shares a similar design to the forward engine mount of Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward engine mount barrel nuts. Such cracking could result in reduced load capacity of the forward engine mount, and could result in separation of an engine from the airplane, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement Barrel Nuts

    For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015: Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 5., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015, replace the existing forward engine mount barrel nuts on each engine, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015.

    (h) Part Number Inspection for Installed Barrel Nuts

    For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015: Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 5. “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015, review the aircraft maintenance records to determine if the airplane engine has been removed, installed, or replaced, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015. If the maintenance records indicate that a barrel nut having part number SL4081C14SP1 is installed, or if the part number of an installed barrel nut cannot be determined, before further flight, do the related investigative and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015.

    (i) Exception to Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Issue 001 date on this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) 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 (k) 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 (i)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) 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.

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6487; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB710026-00, Issue 001, dated June 10, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) 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.

    (4) 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.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11683 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3108; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-16] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Harlan, KY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E Airspace at Harlan, KY, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Tucker-Guthrie Memorial Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, July 21, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Tucker-Guthrie Memorial Airport, Harlan, KY.

    History

    On March 3, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the earth at Tucker-Guthrie Memorial Airport, Harlan, KY. (81 FR 11139). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found an error in the geographic coordinates of Tucker-Guthrie Memorial Airport. This action corrects that error.

    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 part 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. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 13-mile radius of Tucker-Guthrie Memorial Airport, Harlan, KY, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Tucker-Guthrie Memorial Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for IFR operations. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO KY E Harlan, KY [New] Tucker-Guthrie Memorial Airport, KY (Lat. 36°51′34″ N., long. 83°21′31″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 13-mile radius of Tucker-Guthrie Memorial Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 10, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11815 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0735; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-2] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace for the following Tennessee Towns; Jackson, TN; Tri-Cities, TN AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule, correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This action corrects final rule published in the Federal Register of March 29, 2016, amending Class E Airspace designated as an extension at McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, Jackson, TN, and Tri-Cities Regional Airport, Tri-Cities, TN. This action corrects the geographic coordinates for McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport. Also, the geographic coordinates for McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport in Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The airport name also is corrected in the Class E 700 feet airspace area. Additionally, Class D Airspace is added to the title.

    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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    History

    The Federal Register published a final rule amending Class E airspace designated as an extension at McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, Jackson, TN, and Tri-Cities Regional Airport, Tri-Cities, TN. (81 FR 17376, March 29, 2016) Docket No. FAA-2016-0735. Further review by the FAA revealed the geographic coordinates for McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, Jackson, TN, required updating. For consistency, the geographic coordinates for the airport are also amended in Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and 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 17376, 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 17376) FR Doc. 2016-06993, Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following Tennessee Towns: Jackson, TN ; Tri-Cities, TN, is corrected as follows:

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    On page 17376, column 3, line 13, after “Amendment of” add the words “Class D Airspace and . . .” On page 17377, column 3, line 23, remove, “(Lat. 35°35′59″ N., long. 88°54′56″ W.)”, and add in its place, “(Lat. 35°36′00″ N., long. 88°54′56″ W.)” On page 17377, column 3, after line 39, add the following text: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO TN D Jackson, TN [Corrected] McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, TN (Lat. 35°36′00″ N., long. 88°54′56″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2900 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASO TN E2 Jackson, TN [Corrected] McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, TN (Lat. 35°36′00″ N., long. 88°54′56″ W.)

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

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO TN E5 Jackson, TN [Corrected] McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, TN (Lat. 35°36′00″ N., long. 88°54′56″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 10, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11818 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 20 CFR Part 725 RIN 1240-AA10 Black Lung Benefits Act: Disclosure of Medical Evidence and Payment of Benefits; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is making a technical amendment to its regulation on disclosure of medical information to reflect the Office of Management and Budget's approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-20, of the information collection requirements contained in that regulation.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Chance, Director, Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite N-3520, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 1-800-347-2502. This is a toll-free number. TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1-800-877-8339 for further information.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background of This Rulemaking

    On April 26, 2016, OWCP published a final rule, titled Black Lung Benefits Act: Disclosure of Medical Evidence and Payment of Benefits, to address certain procedural issues that had arisen in claim adjudications and other technical issues. 81 FR 24464 (April 26, 2016). Section 725.413 requires parties to exchange certain medical information, and therefore could be considered a collection of information within the meaning of the PRA. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and displays a valid OMB control number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a), (b), 1320.6. Accordingly, the Department submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for approval when it proposed the rule. See ICR Reference Number 201504-1240-002. The notice of proposed rulemaking specifically invited comments regarding the information collection and notified the public of their opportunity to file comments with both OMB and the Department. 80 FR 23749 (April 29, 2015). On July 24, 2015, OMB concluded its review of the ICR by asking the Department to submit another ICR at the final rule stage after considering any public comments regarding the information collection requirements in the rule.

    The Department received comments on the substance of proposed § 725.413; those comments are fully addressed in the final rule. 81 FR 24469-74. The Department received no comments about the information collection burdens. The Department submitted an ICR to OMB for the information collection in the final rule on March 16, 2016, see ICR Reference Number 201511-1240-003, and specified in the final rule that it would publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce the result of OMB's review. 81 FR 24477. On May 3, 2016, OMB approved the Department's information collection request under Control Number 1240-0054, thus giving effect to the information collection requirements contained in the final rule. OMB authorization for this information collection currently expires on May 31, 2019. The Department is making this technical amendment to comply with the notice requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5(b).

    II. Statutory Authority

    Sections 411(b), 422(a), and 426(a) of the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 921(b), 932(a), and 936(a)) authorize the Secretary of Labor to prescribe rules and regulations necessary for its administration and enforcement.

    III. Rulemaking Analyses Administrative Procedure Act

    Section 553(b)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3), provides that an agency is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicit public comments when the agency has good cause to find that doing so would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). The Department has determined that publishing a separate notice of proposed rulemaking for this technical amendment to 20 CFR 725.413 is unnecessary. The information collection requirements whose approval this technical amendment announces were previously published in the April 29, 2015, notice of proposed rulemaking. 80 FR 23749. The Department invited public comment on both the substance of the regulatory revisions and the information collection burden they may impose. Id. OMB approved this information collection after consideration of the comments received. Thus, publishing an additional notice of proposed rulemaking for this collection would be duplicative and is unnecessary.

    Section 553(d) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that substantive rules should take effect not less than 30 days after the date they are published in the Federal Register unless “otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found[.]” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This technical amendment does not change the substance of § 725.413 and instead merely confirms that OMB has approved the information collection contained in that regulation. For this reason, the Department finds good cause to make this technical amendment effective on the same date as the final rule, May 26, 2016. 81 FR 24465.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because it is not subject to the APA's proposed rulemaking requirements.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule is not subject to sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) because it is not subject to the APA's proposed rulemaking requirements. In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate as described in sections 203 and 204 of the UMRA.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule announces OMB's approval of the information collection contained in the final rule published on April 26, 2016, at 81 FR 24464. It does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Executive Order 12866

    This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735).

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255) regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule will not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 725

    Administrative practice and procedure, Black lung benefits, Claims, Coal miners' entitlement to benefits, Health care, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Survivors' entitlement to benefits, Total disability due to pneumoconiosis, Workers' compensation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 20 CFR part 725 as follows:

    PART 725—CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS UNDER PART C OF TITLE IV OF THE FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT, AS AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 725 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1950, 15 FR 3174; 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 902(f), 934, 936; 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 405; Secretary's Order 10-2009, 74 FR 58834.

    2. Add a parenthetical statement to § 725.413 to read as follows:
    § 725.413 Disclosure of medical information. (The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection contained in this section and assigned control number 1240-0054 with an expiration date of May 31, 2019.)
    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of May, 2016. Leonard J. Howie, III, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11840 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1902 [Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023] RIN 1218-AC49 Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses; Correction AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA published in the Federal Register of May 12, 2016, a final rule revising its Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Regulation. In the rule, a paragraph was inadvertently removed. This document reinserts that paragraph.

    DATES:

    Effective: August 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

    For general and technical information: Miriam Schoenbaum, Office of Statistical Analysis, Room N-3507, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)693-1841; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OSHA published in the Federal Register of May 12, 2016, a final rule revising its Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses regulation (92 FR 29624).

    This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under Sections 8 and 24 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 657, 673), Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 41-2012 (77 FR 3912 (Jan. 25, 2012)).

    Need for Correction

    Inadvertently § 1904.35(b)(2) was designated as reserved. This document reinserts that paragraph.

    In FR Rule Doc. No. 2016-10443 beginning on page 29624 in the issue of May 12, 2016, make the following correction:

    On page 29692, in the first column, after the second paragraph, remove “(2) [Reserved].” and add the following in its place:

    “(2) Do I have to give my employees and their representatives access to the OSHA injury and illness records? Yes, your employees, former employees, their personal representatives, and their authorized employee representatives have the right to access the OSHA injury and illness records, with some limitations, as discussed below.

    (i) Who is an authorized employee representative? An authorized employee representative is an authorized collective bargaining agent of employees.

    (ii) Who is a “personal representative” of an employee or former employee? A personal representative is:

    (A) Any person that the employee or former employee designates as such, in writing; or

    (B) The legal representative of a deceased or legally incapacitated employee or former employee.

    (iii) If an employee or representative asks for access to the OSHA 300 Log, when do I have to provide it? When an employee, former employee, personal representative, or authorized employee representative asks for copies of your current or stored OSHA 300 Log(s) for an establishment the employee or former employee has worked in, you must give the requester a copy of the relevant OSHA 300 Log(s) by the end of the next business day.

    (iv) May I remove the names of the employees or any other information from the OSHA 300 Log before I give copies to an employee, former employee, or employee representative? No, you must leave the names on the 300 Log. However, to protect the privacy of injured and ill employees, you may not record the employee's name on the OSHA 300 Log for certain “privacy concern cases,” as specified in § 1904.29(b)(6) through (9).

    (v) If an employee or representative asks for access to the OSHA 301 Incident Report, when do I have to provide it? (A) When an employee, former employee, or personal representative asks for a copy of the OSHA 301 Incident Report describing an injury or illness to that employee or former employee, you must give the requester a copy of the OSHA 301 Incident Report containing that information by the end of the next business day.

    (B) When an authorized employee representative asks for copies of the OSHA 301 Incident Reports for an establishment where the agent represents employees under a collective bargaining agreement, you must give copies of those forms to the authorized employee representative within 7 calendar days. You are only required to give the authorized employee representative information from the OSHA 301 Incident Report section titled “Tell us about the case.” You must remove all other information from the copy of the OSHA 301 Incident Report or the equivalent substitute form that you give to the authorized employee representative.

    (vi) May I charge for the copies? No, you may not charge for these copies the first time they are provided. However, if one of the designated persons asks for additional copies, you may assess a reasonable charge for retrieving and copying the records.”

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 13, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11817 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0100] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is adding, deleting, and modifying special local regulations for annual marine events in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. When enforced, these regulated areas would restrict vessels from portions of water areas during certain annually recurring events. The special local regulations are intended to expedite public notification and ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with certain maritime events.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0100 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Petty Officer Ian M. Fallon, U.S. Coast Guard Waterways Management Division Sector Long Island Sound; telephone (203) 468-4565, or email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On June 23, 2015, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled “Special Local Regulations, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone” (80 FR 35892). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to making changes to 33 CFR 100.100 “Special Local Regulations; Regatta and Boat Races in the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone.” During the comment period that ended July 23, 2015, we received no comments.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. This regulation carries out two related actions: (1) Establishing necessary special local regulations; and (2) updating and reorganizing existing regulations for ease of use and reduction of administrative overhead.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    The Coast Guard is to amend 33 CFR 100.100 “Special Local Regulations; Regattas and Boat Races in the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone” by establishing sixteen permanent marine events regulated areas, removing five previously regulated areas, and modifying three marine event special local regulations. This rulemaking limits the unnecessary burden of establishing temporary rules for events that occur on an annual basis.

    (1) Establishing New Marine Event Regulated Areas

    This rule establishes sixteen permanent marine event special local regulations under 33 CFR 100.100. These events include fireworks displays, swimming events, and regattas that take place throughout the Long Island Sound COTP Zone. Event locations and details are listed below in the text of the regulation. Because large numbers of spectator vessels are expected to congregate around the location of these events, these regulated areas are needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards associated with marine events, including large numbers of swimmers, hard to see and unstable small boats, unexpected pyrotechnics detonation, and burning debris. This rule permanently establishes regulated areas that restrict vessel movement around the location of each marine event to reduce the associated hazards.

    During the enforcement period of the regulated areas, persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering, transiting through, remaining, anchoring, or mooring within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the COTP or the designated representative. Persons and vessels would be able to request authorization to enter, transit through, remain, anchor, or moor within the regulated areas by contacting the COTP Sector Long Island Sound, or designated representative, by telephone at (203) 468-4401 or via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, remain, anchor, or moor within any of the regulated areas is granted, all persons and vessels receiving authorization would be required to comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    The Coast Guard COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative will enforce the regulated areas. These designated representatives are comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state and local agencies in the enforcement of these regulated areas.

    Certain special local regulations are listed without known dates or times. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound will cause notice of the enforcement of these regulated areas to be made by all appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among the effected segments of the public, including publication in the Federal Register as a Notice of Enforcement, Local Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    (2) Remove Old Special Local Regulations That Are no Longer Needed

    This rule removes five special local regulations from the TABLE to § 100.100: (1) 1.3 Head of the Connecticut Regatta, Connecticut River, CT as the event has not been held since 2012 and the sponsoring organization, the City of Middletown, has confirmed that they do not intend to hold the event again in the foreseeable future; (2) 1.4 Riverfront Regatta, Hartford, CT as the event's details have significantly changed and is no longer the same event; (3) 1.5 Patchogue Grand Prix, Patchogue, NY as the event has not been held since 2010 and the sponsoring organization, Offshore Powerboat Association, has confirmed that they do not intend to hold the event again in the foreseeable future; (4) 1.6 Riverfront U.S. Title series Powerboat Race, Hartford, CT as the event has not been held since 2011 and the sponsoring organization, Riverfront Recaptured, has confirmed that they do not intend to hold the event again in the foreseeable future; and (5) 1.8 Kayak for a Cause Regatta as the event has not been held since 2012 and the sponsoring organization, Kayak for a Cause, has disbanded.

    (3) Modify and Update Existing Regulated Areas.

    This rule amends the following special local regulations from the TABLE to § 100.100: (1) 1.1 Harvard-Yale Regatta, Thames River, New London, CT will be moved to 5.1 on the Table to § 100.100; (2) 1.2 Great Connecticut River Raft Race, Middletown will be moved to 7.1 on the Table to § 100.100 and the name changed to Connecticut River Raft Race, Middletown, CT; and (3) 1.7 Hartford Dragon Boat Regatta will be moved to 8.1 on the Table to § 100.100 and the name changed to the Riverfront Dragon Boat and Asian Festival.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The regulated areas are of limited duration and vessels may transit the navigable waterways outside of the regulated areas; and persons or vessels requiring entry into the regulated areas may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit these regulated areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishing sixteen permanent marine events regulated areas, removing five previously regulated areas, and modifying three marine event special local regulations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recording requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. In § 100.100, revise the “Table to § 100.100” to read as follows:
    § 100.100 Special Local Regulations; Regattas and Boat Races in the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone. Table to § 100.100 5 May 5.1 Harvard-Yale Regatta, Thames River, New London, CT • Date: A single day between the last Saturday in May through second Saturday of June. • Rain Date: A single day between the last Saturday in May through second Saturday of June. • Time: 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. • Location: All waters of the Thames River at New London, Connecticut, between the Penn Central Draw Bridge at position 41°21′46.94″ N. 072°05′14.46″ W. to Bartlett Cove at position 41°25′35.9″ N. 072°05′42.89″ W. (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 5.2 Jones Beach Air Show • Date: The Thursday through Sunday before Memorial Day each May. • Time: (1) The “No Entry Area” will be enforced each day from the start of the air show until 30 minutes after it concludes. Exact time will be determined annually. (2) The “Slow/No Wake Area” and the “No Southbound Traffic Area” will be enforced each day for six hours after the air show concludes. Exact time will be determined annually. • Location: (1) “No Entry Area”: Waters of the Atlantic Ocean off Jones Beach State Park, Wantagh, NY contained within the following described area; beginning at a point on land at position 40°34′54″ N., 073°33′21″ W.; then east along the shoreline of Jones Beach State Park to a point on land at position 40°35′53″ N., 073°28′48″ W.; then south to a point in the Atlantic Ocean off of Jones Beach at position 40°35′05″ N., 073°28′34″ W.; then west to position 40°33′15″ N., 073°33′09″ W.; then north to the point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. (2) “Slow/No Wake Area”: All navigable waters between Meadowbrook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway and contained within the following area. Beginning in position 40°35′49.01″ N., 73°32′33.63″ W.; then north along the Meadowbrook State Parkway to its intersection with Merrick Road in position 40°39′14″ N., 73°34′0.76″ W.; then east along Merrick Road to its intersection with Wantagh State Parkway in position 40°39′51.32″ N., 73°30′43.36″ W.; then south along the Wantagh State Parkway to its intersection with Ocean Parkway in position 40°35′47.30″ N., 073°30′29.17″ W.; then west along Ocean Parkway to its intersection with Meadowbrook State Parkway at the point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. (3) “No Southbound Traffic Area”: All navigable waters of Zach's Bay south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay at position 40°36′29.20″ N., 073°29′22.88″ W. and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay at position 40°36′16.53″ N., 073°28′57.26″ W. (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 6 June 6.1 Swim Across America Greenwich • Date: A single day during June. • Time: 5:30 a.m. until noon. • Location: All navigable waters of Stamford Harbor within an area starting at a point in position 41°01′32.03″ N., 073°33′8.93″ W., then southeast to a point in position 41°01′15.01″ N., 073°32′55.58″ W.; then southwest to a point in position 41°0′49.25″ N., 073°33′20.36″ W.; then northwest to a point in position 41°0′58″ N., 073°33′27″ W.; then northeast to a point in position 41°1′15.8″ N., 073°33′9.85″ W., then heading north and ending at point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 7 July 7.1 Connecticut River Raft Race, Middletown, CT • Date: A single day between the last Saturday in July through first Saturday of August. • Time: 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. • Location: All waters of the Connecticut River near Middletown, CT between Gildersleeve Island (Marker no. 99) at position 41°36′02.13″ N., 072°37′22.71″ W.; and Portland Riverside Marina (Marker no. 88) at position 41°33′38.3″ N., 072°37′36.53″ W. (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. • Additional Stipulations: Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas unless authorized by COTP or designated representative. 7.2 Dolan Family Fourth Fireworks • Date: July 4. • Rain date: July 5. • Time: To be determined annually. • Locations: (1) “No Entry Area”: All waters of Oyster Bay Harbor in Long Island Sound off Oyster Bay, NY within a 1000 foot radius of the launch platform in approximate position 40°53′42.50″ N., 073°30′04.30″ W. (NAD 83). (2) “Slow/No Wake Area”: All waters of Oyster Bay Harbor in Long Island Sound off Oyster Bay, NY contained within the following area; beginning at a point on land in position at 40°53′12.43″ N., 073°31′13.05″ W. near Moses Point; then east across Oyster Bay Harbor to a point on land in position at 40°53′15.12″ N., 073°30′38.45″ W.; then north along the shoreline to a point on land in position at 40°53′34.43″ N., 073°30′33.42″ W. near Cove Point; then east along the shoreline to a point on land in position at 40°53′41.67″ N., 073°29′40.74″ W. near Cooper Bluff; then south along the shoreline to a point on land in position 40°53′05.09″ N., 073°29′23.32″ W. near Eel Creek; then east across Cold Spring Harbor to a point on land in position 40°53′06.69″ N., 073°28′19.9″ W.; then north along the shoreline to a point on land in position 40°55′24.09″ N., 073°29′49.09″ W. near Whitewood Point; then west across Oyster Bay to a point on land in position 40°55′5.29″ N., 073°31′19.47″ W. near Rocky Point; then south along the shoreline to a point on land in position 40°54′04.11″ N., 073°30′29.18″ W. near Plum Point; then northwest along the shoreline to a point on land in position 40°54′09.06″ N., 073°30′45.71″ W.; then southwest along the shoreline to a point on land in position 40°54′03.2″ N., 073°31′01.29″ W.; and then south along the shoreline back to point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 7.3 Clam Shell Foundation Fireworks • Date: A single day during July. • Time: To be determined annually. • Locations: (1) “No Entry Area”: All waters of Three Mile Harbor, East Hampton, NY within a 1000 foot radius of the launch platform in approximate position 41°01′15.49″ N., 072°11′27.5″ W. (NAD 83). (2) “Northbound Traffic Only Area”: All waters of Three Mile Harbor, East Hampton, NY contained within the following area; beginning at a point in position at 41°02′5.05″ N., 072°11′19.52″ W.; then southeast to a point on land in position at 41°02′2.67″ N., 072°11′17.97″ W.; then south along shoreline to a point on land in position at 41°01′35.26″ N., 072°11′9.56″ W.; then southeast across channel to a point on land in position at 41°01′30.28″ N., 072°10″52.77″ W.; then north along the shoreline to a point on land in position at 41°01′41.35″ N., 072° 10′52.57″ W.; then north across channel to a point on land in position at 41°01′44.41″ N., 072° 10′52.23″ W. near the southern end of Sedge Island; then north along shoreline of Sedge Island to a point on land in position at 41°01′56.3″ N., 072°10′59.37″ W., near the northern end of Sedge Island; then northwest across the channel to a point on land in position 41°01′56.76″ N., 072°11′0.66″ W.; then northwest along shoreline to a point on land in position 41°01′41.35″ N., 072°10′52.57″ W.; then northwest to position at 41°02′5.92″ N., 072°11′16.73″ W.; and then southwest to point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 7.4 Jones Beach State Park Fireworks • Date: July 4. • Rain date: July 5. • Time: 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. • Locations: (1) “No Entry Area”: All waters off of Jones Beach State Park, Wantagh, NY within a 1000 foot radius of the launch platform in approximate position 40°34′ 56.68″ N., 073°30′31.19″ W. (NAD 83). (2) “Slow/No Wake Area”: All navigable waters between Meadowbrook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway and contained within the following area. Beginning in position at 40°35′49.01″ N., 073°32′33.63″ W.; then north along the Meadowbrook State Parkway to its intersection with Merrick Road in position at 40°39′14″ N., 073°34′0.76″ W.; then east along Merrick Road to its intersection with Wantagh State Parkway in position at 40°39′51.32″ N., 073°30′43.36″ W.; then south along the Wantagh State Parkway to its intersection with Ocean Parkway in position at 40°35′47.30″ N., 073°30′29.17″ W.; then west along Ocean Parkway to its intersection with Meadowbrook State Parkway at the point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. (3) “No Southbound Traffic Area”: All navigable waters of Zach's Bay south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay in position at 40°36′29.20″ N., 073°29′22.88″ W. and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay in position at 40°36′16.53″ N., 073°28′57.26″ W. (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 7.5 Maggie Fischer Memorial Great South Bay Cross Bay Swim • Date: A single day during July. • Time: To be determined annually. • Location: Waters of the Great South Bay, NY within 100 yards of the race course. Starting Point at the Fire Island Lighthouse Dock in position at 40°38′01″ N., 073°13′07″ W.; then north-by-northwest to a point in position at 40°38′52″ N., 073°13′09″ W.; then north-by-northwest to a point in position at 40°39′40″ N., 073°13′30″ W.; then north-by-northwest to a point in position at 40°40′30″ N., 073°14′00″ W.; and then north-by-northwest, finishing at Gilbert Park, Brightwaters, NY at position 40°42′25″ N., 073°14′52″ W. (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 7.6 Aquapalooza, Zach's Bay • Date: A single day during July. • Time: 11:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. • Location: All navigable waters of Zach's Bay, Wantagh, NY south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′29.20″ N., 073°29′22.88″ W. and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′16.53″ N., 073°28′57.26″ W. • Additional stipulations: During the enforcement period vessel speed in the regulated area is restricted to no wake speed or 6 knots, whichever is slower. On the day of the event from 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. vessels may only transit the regulated area in the northbound direction or outbound direction. 7.7 Fran Schnarr Open Water Championship Swim • Date: A single day during July. • Time: To be determined annually. • Location: Waters of Huntington Bay, NY within 100 yards of the race course. Starting in position at 40°54′25.3″ N., 073°24′27.9″ W.; then northeast to a position at 40°54′32″ N., 73°23′57.7″ W.; then northwest to a position at 40°54′37.9″ N., 073°23′57.2″ W.; then southwest to a position at 40°54′33.2″ N., 073°25′28.1″ W.; then southeast to a position at 40°54′25.5″ N., 073°25′25.7″ W.; and then southeast to point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 8 August 8.1 Riverfront Dragon Boat and Asian Festival • Dates: Saturday and Sunday during the third weekend of August. • Time: 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. each day. • Regulated area: All waters of the Connecticut River in Hartford, CT between the Bulkeley Bridge at 41°46′10.10″ N., 072°39′56.13″ W. and the Wilbur Cross Bridge at 41°45′11.67″ N., 072°39′13.64″ W. (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 8.2 Swim Across the Sound • Date: A single day during August. • Time: To be determined annually. • Location: Waters of Long Island Sound from Port Jefferson, NY in approximate position 40°58′11.71″ N., 073°05′51.12″ W.; then northwest to Captain's Cove Seaport, Bridgeport, CT in approximate position 41°09′25.07″ N., 073°12′47.82″ W. (NAD 83). 8.3 Stonewall Swim • Date: A day during a weekend in August. • Time: 8:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. • Location: All navigable waters of the Great South Bay within a three miles long and half mile wide box connecting Snedecor Avenue in Bayport, NY to Porgie Walk in Fire Island, NY. Formed by connecting the following points. Beginning at 40°43′40.24″ N., 073°03′41.50″ W.; then to 40°43′40.00″ N., 073°03′13.40″ W.; then to 40°40′04.13″ N., 073°03′43.81″ W.; then to 40°40′08.30″ N., 073°03′17.70″ W.; and then back to point of origin (NAD 83). 8.4 Island Beach Two Mile Swim • Date: A single day during August. • Time: To be determined annually. • Location: All waters of Captain Harbor between Little Captain's Island and Bower's Island that are located within the box formed by connecting four points in the following positions. Beginning at 40°59′23.35″ N. 073°36′42.05″ W.; then northwest to 40°59′51.04″ N. 073°37′57.32″ W.; then southwest to 40°59′45.17″ N. 073°38′01.18″ W.; then southeast to 40°59′17.38″ N. 073°36′45.9″ W.; then northeast to the point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 8.5 Waves of Hope Swim • Date: A single day during August. • Time: To be determined annually. • Location: All waters of the Great South Bay off Amityville, NY shoreward of a line created by connecting the following points. Beginning at a point at 40°39′22.38″ N., 073°25′31.63″ W; then south to a point at 40°39′2.18″ N., 073°25′31.63″ W.; then east to a point at 40°39′2.18″ N., 073°24′3.81″ W.; then north to a point at 40°39′18.27″ N., 073°24′3.81″ W.; and then west back to point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 8.6 Smith Point Triathlon • Date: A day during a weekend in August. • Time: To be determined annually. • Location: All waters of Narrow Bay near Smith Point Park in Mastic Beach, NY within the area bounded by land along its southern edge and points in position at 40°44′14.28″ N., 072°51′40.68″ W.; then north to a point at position 40°44′20.83″ N., 072°51′40.68″ W.; then east to a point at position 40°44′20.83″ N., 072°51′19.73″ W.; then south to a point at position 40°44′14.85″ N., 072°51′19.73″ W.; and then southwest along the shoreline back to the point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 9 September 9.1 Head of the Tomahawk • Date: A single day during September. • Time: To be determined annually. • Location: All navigable waters of the Connecticut River off South Glastonbury, CT. Beginning at position 41°41′18.88″ N.; 072°37′16.26″ W.; then downriver along the west bank to a point at position 41°38′49.12″ N., 072°37′32.73″ W.; then across the Connecticut River to a point at position 41°38′49.5″ N., 072°37′19.55″ W.; then upriver along the east bank to a point at position 41°41′25.82″ N., 072°37′9.08″ W.; then across the Connecticut River to the point of origin (NAD 83). • Additional Stipulations: Non-event vessels transiting through the area during the enforcement period are to travel at no wake speeds or 6 knots, whichever is slower and that non-event vessels shall not block or impede the transit of event participants, event safety vessels or official patrol vessels in the regulated area unless authorized by COTP or designated representatives. 10 October 10.1 Head of the Riverfront Rowing Regatta, Hartford, CT • Date: The first Sunday of October. • Time: 5:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. • Location: All water of the Connecticut River, Hartford, CT, between at point North of Wethersfield Cove at 41°43′52.17″ N., 072°38′40.38″ W. and the Riverside Boat House 41°46′30.98″ N., 072° 39′54.35″ W. (NAD 83).
    Dated: April 19, 2016. E.J. Cubanski, III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11824 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0390] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow participants from the AMGEN Tour of California to cross the drawspan safely and without interruption. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0390] is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The vertical lift bridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 22, 2016, to allow participants from the AMGEN Tour of California to cross the drawspan safely and without interruption. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: May 9, 2016. D.H. Sulouff, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11993 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0412] Security Zone; Protection of Military Cargo, Captain of the Port Zone Puget Sound AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce security zone regulations for the Sitcum Waterway Security Zone in Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington from 6 a.m. on May 17, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. on May 22, 2016, unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port. This action is necessary to help provide for the security of Department of Defense assets and military cargo located in those waters during that time period. Entry into the Sitcum Waterway security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a Designated Representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1321 will be enforced for the Sitcum Waterway Security Zone from 6 a.m. on May 17, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on May 22, 2016, unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email CWO Jeffrey Zappen, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6076, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce 33 CFR 165.1321 security regulations for the Sitcum Waterway Security Zone described in paragraph (c)(2) of that section from May 17, 2016, at 6 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. on May 22, 2016, unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port. The security zone is necessary to help provide for the security of Department of Defense assets and military cargo located in those waters during the enforcement period. Entry into the security zone is prohibited unless authorized under § 165.1321. Vessels wishing to enter the security zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a Designated Representative as outlined in § 165.1321.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1321 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via marine information broadcasts and on-scene assets, if any.

    If the COTP determines that the Sitcum Waterway Security Zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners will be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11870 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0026] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-yard safety zone around each of five locations where the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) wind turbine generator (WTG) towers, nacelles, blades and subsea cables will be installed in the navigable waters of Rhode Island Sound, RI, from May 15 to October 31, 2016. These safety zones are intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with construction of the BIWF. This regulation prohibits vessels from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones while construction vessels and associated equipment are working on-site (i.e., within 500 yards of a WTG) at one or more of the BIWF WTG sites, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from May 20, 2016 through October 31, 2016. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 15, 2016 until May 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0026 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this rule, call or email Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, Chief of the Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, telephone 401-435-2351, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Acronyms BIWF Block Island Wind Farm CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of The Port DHS Department of Homeland Security DWW Deepwater Wind FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking NTM Notice To Mariners RIDEM Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management § Section TFR Temporary Final Rule U.S.C. United States Code WTG Wind Turbine Generator II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On February 16, 2016, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register titled Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI, 81 FR 7718, proposing to create BIWF safety zones effective April 1, 2016. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to BIWF construction. Two comments were received requesting an extension of the initial comment period that ended on March 17, 2016. On April 4, 2016, we published a Proposed Rule in the Federal Register, 81 FR 19097, opening a second comment period that closed on April 17, 2016.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The original effective date of the safety zones created by this rule was April 1, 2016. The revised date is six weeks later, May 15, 2016. Construction and cable-laying vessels are already preparing to work in the vicinity of the BIWF. The safety of life and navigation for construction and support vessels, BIWF workers, mariners, and the boating public during construction activities in the vicinity of the BIWF in Rhode Island Sound, RI would be negatively impacted by a delay in the effective date of this TFR.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Southeastern New England has determined that potential hazards associated with construction of the BIWF from May 15 to October 31, 2016 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of any of the five WTG sites when and where construction vessels are present. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone during this construction period.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    Twelve comments were received. As noted above, the Coast Guard provided two distinct periods for the public to submit comments. The first comment period, announced in our NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2016, (81 FR 7718) was from February 16 to March 17, 2016. The second comment period, announced in our Proposed Rule published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2016, (81 FR 19097) was from April 4-17, 2016. We received nine comments in the initial comment period. Two requested additional time to submit comments.

    Three comments supported the safety zones proposed in the NPRM. One comment suggested that the Coast Guard also prohibit anchoring outside the safety zone areas. Another comment suggested extending the effective dates of the TFR to allow for construction delays. A third comment suggested that measures be implemented to prevent vessels near the safety zones from drifting into the safety zones.

    Four comments opposed the safety zones, claiming the zones will cause irreparable economic harm to commercial fishing interest that normally fish in the vicinity of the BIWF unless adequately compensated by Deepwater Wind (DWW), the developers of the BIWF.

    Three comments were received during the second comment period. One comment supported the safety zones as a necessary safety measure with minimal adverse environmental impacts. Two comments requested clarification of our NPRM. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) asked us to clarify that the safety zones are 500 yards in radius centered on each BIWF WTG, not 500 yards diameter. The safety zones created by this TFR are five individual safety zones, each 500 yards in radius centered on each BIWF WTG. RIDEM and another comment also requested that we confirm that each safety zone will only be enforced (i.e., entry to non-construction vessels will be prohibited) when construction vessels are on-site (within 500 yards of a WTG). DWW intends to have vessels on site at only one or two WTG sites simultaneously, not all five concurrently. As written, this TFR will be enforced at each WTG site only when BIWF construction vessels are on-site at a particular WTG. For example, if BIWF construction vessels are at WTG site 1, vessels must remain at least 500 yards from WTG 1. But vessels may approach WTGs 2-5 as close as desired that is consistent with prudent seamanship and navigation safety. As another example, if BIWF construction vessels are at WTG sites 3 and 4, then waters at sites 1, 2, and 5 are completely accessible to mariners, and so on.

    Additionally, RIDEM requested that the Coast Guard consult with DWW to reduce the effective period of the safety zones created by this TFR to “minimize economic hardship on members of the RI fishing industry.” The Coast Guard consulted DWW on April 19, 2016 to discuss the length of the effective period. This TFR shortens the effective period by six weeks and clarifies that the safety zones will only be enforced at those individual WTG sites where construction vessels are on-scene, not all five sites simultaneously, which minimizes the times and areas that may impact the RI fishing industry.

    RIDEM also requested that five days public notice be provided to inform the public of the specific WTG(s) at which construction activities would be taking place. DWW publishes a daily mariner notification at http://dwwind.com/biwf-construction/, which will include a 5-day forecast of locations of construction vessels and activities. Additionally, RIDEM has a fishery liaison officer whose duties included keeping the RI fishing community advised of BIWF construction activities.

    The Coast Guard considered all these comments and provided the clarification above, but otherwise made no changes to the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM, other than to change the commencement date of the effective period of the TFR from April 1 to May 15, 2016.

    This rule establishes a 500-yard safety zone around each of five locations where the BIWF WTG towers, nacelles, blades, and subsea cables will be installed in the navigable waters of the Rhode Island Sound, RI, from May 15 to October 31, 2016.

    These safety zones are intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with construction of the BIWF. These safety zones are also of similar dimensions and duration as safety zones established in 2015 for the same purpose, during the first phase of construction of the BIWF. Vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones at only those WTG sites where construction vessels and associated equipment are present unless authorized by the COTP, Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and the time-of-day of the safety zones. The safety zones are 500 yards in radius, centered on each of five WTG locations, and enforced at those WTG sites where construction vessels or construction activities are taking place. Also, construction of the five WTG sites is sequential, not concurrent, so that construction vessels and activities (and hence, safety zones) are present at only one or two sites at any given time. Vessels will be able to safely transit around these safety zones. The Coast Guard will publicize these safety zones in advance via the Local Notice to Mariners Deepwater Wind will update its Web site daily to keep mariners informed of what safety zones, if any, may be enforced. Lastly, safety zones of the same size and duration were implemented for the first phase of the BIWF construction in 2015 with no significant impact to mariners or small entities.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit these safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones that would prohibit entry within 500 yards of each WTG site of the BIWF while construction vessels and associated equipment are present at that particular WTG. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for Part 165 reads as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Add § 165.T0026 to read as follows:
    § 165.T0026 Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI

    (a) Location. Areas within a 500-yard radius of the following five positions are safety zones:

    Platform Latitude Longitude WTG 1 41°7′32.74″ N. 71°30′27.04″ W. WTG 2 41°7′11.57″ N. 71°30′50.22″ W. WTG 3 41°6'52.96″ N. 71°31′16.18″ W. WTG 4 41°6′36.54″ N. 71°31′44.62″ W. WTG 5 41°6′22.79″ N. 71°32′15.50″ W.

    (b) Enforcement period. From May 15 to October 31, 2016, vessels will be prohibited from entering into these safety zones, when enforced, during construction activity of the five Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) wind turbine generators (WTG) located in the positions listed in 2(a) above.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England (COTP), to act on his or her behalf.

    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 as well as the following regulations apply to the safety zones established in conjunction with the construction of the BIWF; Rhode Island Sound, RI. These regulations may be enforced for the duration of construction.

    (2) Vessels must not enter into, transit through, moor, or anchor in these safety zones during periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP, Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no-wake speed, in a manner which will not endanger construction vessels or associated equipment.

    (3) Failure to comply with a lawful direction from the COTP, Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. J.T. Kondratowicz, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Southeastern New England.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11826 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1511 and 1552 [EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478; FRL 9946-47-OARM] Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation; Clause for Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Contract AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amends the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to update policy, procedures, and contract clauses. This final rule updates the EPAAR clause Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Contract.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1752. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Valentino, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-4522; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The EPA reviewed EPAAR clause 1552.211-73, Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Term Contract, to make the clause more prescriptive in describing the EPA's responsibilities when the Agency orders less level of effort (LOE) than the maximum LOE specified in the subject clause; e.g., if the clause specifies 100,000 hours for a given period of performance but the contractor only provides 70,000 hours. The clause provides that a downward equitable adjustment will be made to reduce the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended LOE is less than 100% of that specified in the LOE clause; e.g., the fixed fee amount will be reduced by 30% using the same 100,000/70,000 hours example. The clause title is also modified so that the clause is now applicable to EPA LOE cost-reimbursement contracts, and paragraph (a) has been revised. The EPAAR 1511.011-73 clause prescription is also being updated accordingly. On April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19257) EPA sought comments on the proposed rule and received no comments.

    II. Final Rule

    This final rule amends the EPAAR to revise the following:

    1. The EPAAR 1511.011-73 clause prescription is updated.

    2. The clause title is revised as follows: Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Contract.

    3. Paragraph (a) has been revised.

    4. An expositional statement has been added to paragraph (c).

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. No information is collected under this action.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    For purposes of assessing the impact of this final rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action revises a current EPAAR provision and does not impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal governments and the private sector.

    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

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

    Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.

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

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution of Use” (66 FR 28335, (May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rulemaking does not involve human health or environmental effects.

    List of Subjects 48 CFR Part 1511

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 1552

    Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 5, 2016. John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is amended as set forth below:

    PART 1511—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS 1. The authority citation for part 1511 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c)

    2. Revise section 1511.011-73 to read as follows:
    1511.011-73 Level of effort.

    The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.211-73, Level of Effort—Cost Reimbursement Contract, in cost-reimbursement contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).

    PART 1552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    4. Revise section 1552.211-73 to read as follows:
    1552.211-73 Level of effort—cost-reimbursement contract.

    As prescribed in 1511.011-73, the contracting officer shall insert the following contract clause in cost-reimbursement contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).

    Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Contract (May 2016)

    (a) The Contractor shall perform all work and provide all required reports within the level of effort specified below. The Contractor shall provide up to ____ direct labor hours for the base period. The Government's best estimate of the level of effort to fulfill these requirements is provided for advisory and estimating purposes. The Government is only obligated to pay for direct labor hours ordered and corresponding fixed fee for labor hours completed.

    (b) Direct labor includes personnel such as engineers, scientists, draftsmen, technicians, statisticians, and programmers, and not support personnel such as company management or data entry/word processing/accounting personnel even though such support personnel are normally treated as direct labor by the Contractor. The level of effort specified in paragraph (a) of this section includes Contractor, subcontractor, and consultant non-support labor hours.

    (c) If the Contractor provides less than 90 percent of the level of effort specified for the base period or any optional period exercised, an equitable downward adjustment of the fixed fee, if any, for that period will be made. The downward adjustment will reduce the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended level of effort is less than 100% of that specified in paragraph (a). (For instance, if a hypothetical base-period LOE of 100,000 hours is being reduced to 70,000, the fixed fee shall also be reduced by the same 30%. Using a corresponding hypothetical base-period fixed fee pool of $300,000, the reduced fixed-fee amount is calculated as: $300,000 × (70,000 hours/100,000 hours) = $210,000.)

    (d) The Government may require the Contractor to provide additional effort up to 110 percent of the level of effort for any period until the estimated cost for that period has been reached. However, this additional effort shall not result in any increase in the fixed fee, if any.

    (e) If this is a cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) contract, the term “fee” in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section means “base fee and incentive fee.” If this is a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract, the term “fee” in paragraphs (c) and (d) means “base fee and award fee.”

    (f) If the level of effort specified to be ordered during a given base or option period is not ordered during that period, that level of effort may not be accumulated and ordered during a subsequent period.

    (g) These terms and conditions do not supersede the requirements of either the “Limitation of Cost” or “Limitation of Funds” clauses.

    (End of clause)
    [FR Doc. 2016-11970 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 98 Friday, May 20, 2016 Proposed Rules FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL 12 CFR Part 1102 [Docket No. AS16-06] Appraisal Subcommittee; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking To Implement Collection and Transmission of Annual AMC Registry Fees AGENCY:

    Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (ASC) is proposing a rule pursuant to authority granted in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) to implement collection and transmission of appraisal management company (AMC) annual registry fees by State appraiser certifying and licensing agencies that elect to register and supervise AMCs. The ASC requests comment on all aspects of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number AS16-06, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting public comments.

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

    Fax: (202) 289-4101. Include docket number on fax cover sheet.

    Mail: Address to Appraisal Subcommittee, Attn: Lori Schuster, Management and Program Analyst, 1401 H Street NW., Suite 760, Washington, DC 20005.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: 1401 H Street NW., Suite 760, Washington, DC 20005.

    In general, the ASC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish those comments on the Regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide, such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. At the close of the comment period, all public comments will also be made available on the ASC's Web site at https://www.asc.gov (follow link in “What's New”) as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons.

    You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this rulemaking action by any of the following methods:

    Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID AS16-06” in the Search box and click “Search.” Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for viewing public comments, viewing other supporting and related materials, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period.

    Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect comments at the ASC office, 1401 H Street NW., Suite 760, Washington, DC 20005. To make an appointment, please call Lori Schuster at (202) 595-7578.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James R. Park, Executive Director, at (202) 595-7575, or Alice M. Ritter, General Counsel, at (202) 595-7577, Appraisal Subcommittee, 1401 H Street NW., Suite 760, Washington, DC 20005.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended (Title XI),1 established the ASC.2 Title XI's purpose is to “provide that Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions will be protected by requiring that real estate appraisals utilized in connection with federally related transactions are performed in writing, in accordance with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision.” 3

    1 Public Law 101-73, 103 Stat. 183; 12 U.S.C. 3331-3355.

    2 The ASC Board is comprised of seven members. Five members are designated by the heads of the FFIEC agencies (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)). The other two members are designated by the heads of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

    3 Title XI § 1101, 12 U.S.C. 3331.

    On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act 4 was signed into law. Section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act included amendments to Title XI. Section 1117 of Title XI, Establishment of State appraiser certifying and licensing agencies, was amended by the Dodd-Frank Act to: (1) Authorize States,5 if they so choose, to register and supervise AMCs; and (2) allow States to add information about AMCs in their State to the National Registry of AMCs (AMC Registry). States electing to register and supervise AMCs under Section 1117 must implement minimum requirements in accordance with the AMC Rule.6

    4 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.

    5 As of January, 2016, the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and four Territories, which are the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and United States Virgin Islands, had State appraiser certifying and licensing agencies.

    6 The Dodd-Frank Act added section 1124 to Title XI, Appraisal Management Company Minimum Requirements, which required the OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and FHFA to establish, by rule, minimum requirements for the registration and supervision of AMCs by States that elect to register and supervise AMCs pursuant to Title XI and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Agencies issued a final rule (AMC Rule) with an effective date of August 10, 2015. (80 Federal Register 32658, June 9, 2015).

    Title XI as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act imposes a statutory restriction that applies 36 months from the effective date of the AMC Rule (Implementation Period).7 In summary, beginning 36 months from the effective date of the AMC Rule, an AMC, as defined by Title XI, may not provide services for a Federally related transaction in a State unless the AMC is registered with a State that has established a registration and supervision program under Section 1117, or is subject to oversight by a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency.

    7 12 U.S.C. 3353(f)(1).

    Section 1103 of Title XI, Functions of Appraisal Subcommittee, was amended by the Dodd-Frank Act to require the ASC to maintain the AMC Registry of AMCs that are either: (1) Registered with and subject to supervision by a State that has elected to register and supervise AMCs; or (2) supervised by a Federal financial institutions regulator (Federally regulated AMCs). It is anticipated that on or before the effective date of this rule, the ASC will issue an ASC Bulletin to States that will address:

    1. When the AMC Registry will be open for States; and

    2. Reporting requirements (information required to be submitted by States in order to register AMCs on the AMC Registry).

    Only those companies that meet the Federal definition of AMC will be eligible to be on the AMC Registry.8

    8 Title XI as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act defines “appraisal management company” to mean, in part, an external third party that oversees a network or panel of more than 15 appraisers (State certified or licensed) in a State, or 25 or more appraisers nationally (two or more States) within a given year. (12 U.S.C. 3350(11)). Title XI as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act also allows States to adopt requirements in addition to those in the AMC Rule. (12 U.S.C. 3353(b)). For example, States may decide to supervise entities that provide appraisal management services, but do not meet the size thresholds of the Title XI definition of AMC. If a State has a more expansive regulatory framework that covers entities that provide appraisal management services but do not meet the Title XI definition of AMC, the State should only submit information regarding AMCs meeting the Title XI definition to the AMC Registry.

    Section 1109 of Title XI, Roster of State certified or licensed appraisers; authority to collect and transmit fees, was amended by the Dodd-Frank Act to require States that elect to register and supervise AMCs to collect: (1) From AMCs that have been in existence for more than a year an annual registry fee of $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers working for or contracting with such AMC in such State during the previous year; and (2) from AMCs that have not been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by an appropriate number to be determined by the ASC.9 The $25 may be adjusted, up to a maximum of $50, at the discretion of the ASC, if necessary to carry out the ASC's Title XI functions.10

    9 12 U.S.C. 3338(a)(4)(B).

    10Id.

    This proposed rule would set the annual AMC registry fee that States would collect and transmit to the ASC if they elect to register and supervise AMCs. This proposed rule sets forth the ASC's interpretation of the phrase “working for or contracting with” as used in the calculation of annual AMC registry fees.

    The ASC recognizes that the time required for notice and comment rulemaking for AMC registry fees could impede States' ability to implement the fees within the Implementation Period. However, the restriction on performance of services for Federally related transactions applies to AMCs that are not registered with the State or subject to oversight by a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency. Therefore, it is the ASC's understanding that the failure of a State to collect the fees under this rule within the Implementation Period would not subject otherwise properly registered and supervised AMCs in that State to the ban on providing services for Federally related transactions in that State.

    II. The Proposed Rule

    The ASC is issuing this proposal to implement Section 1109 of Title XI for collection and transmission of AMC registry fees by those States electing to register and supervise AMCs.11 The proposed rule would establish the annual AMC registry fee and interpret the phrase “working for or contracting with” in accordance with section 1109 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. As with appraisers, an AMC operating in more than one State that elects to register and supervise AMCs would be required to pay a registry fee in each State in order to be on the AMC Registry for each of those States.

    11Id.

    Definitions

    AMC Registry. Proposed § 1102.401(a) proposes to define AMC Registry as the national registry maintained by the ASC of those AMCs that meet the Federal definition of AMC, as defined in 12 U.S.C. 3350(11), are registered by a State or are Federally regulated, and have paid the annual AMC registry fee.

    AMC Rule. Proposed § 1102.401(b) proposes to define AMC Rule as the interagency final rule on minimum requirements for AMCs, 12 CFR 34.210-34.216; 12 CFR 225.190-225.196; 12 CFR 323.8-323.14; CFR 1222.20-1222.26 (2015).

    ASC. Proposed § 1102.401(c) proposes to define ASC as the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council established under section 1102 (12 U.S.C. 3310) as it amended the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) by adding section 1011.

    Performance of an appraisal. Proposed § 1102.401(d) proposes to define performance of an appraisal to mean the appraisal service requested of an appraiser by the AMC was provided to the AMC.

    State. Proposed § 1102.401(e) proposes to define State as any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

    Terms incorporated by reference. Proposed § 1102.401(f) states that the definitions of: Appraisal management company (AMC); appraisal management services; appraiser panel; consumer credit; covered transaction; dwelling; Federally regulated AMC are incorporated from the AMC Rule by reference because the proposed rule is closely related to the AMC Rule.

    Establishing the Annual AMC Registry Fee

    Proposed § 1102.402 would establish the annual AMC registry fee for States that elect to register and supervise AMCs as follows: (1) In the case of an AMC that has been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction in such State during the previous year; and (2) in the case of an AMC that has not been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction in such State since the AMC commenced doing business. Performance of an appraisal means the appraisal service requested of an appraiser by the AMC was provided to the AMC.

    For AMCs that have been in existence for more than a year, Section 1109 of Title XI provides that the annual AMC registry fee is based on the number of appraisers “working for or contracting with” an AMC in a State during a 12-month period multiplied by $25, up to a maximum of $50.12 The proposed rule adopts the minimum fee of $25 as set by statute and interprets the phrase “working for or contracting with” to mean those appraisers on an AMC appraiser panel that performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction 13 during the previous year in a particular State. The annual AMC registry fee for AMCs that have not been in existence for more than a year requires a determination by the ASC of an appropriate multiplier. The ASC proposes to use the same factors of $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers that performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction, but the fee would be based on the actual period of time since the AMC commenced doing business rather than 12 months.

    12 Title XI § 1109(a)(4)(B), 12 U.S.C. 3338(a)(4)(B).

    13 Consistent with the AMC Rule, the proposed determination of performing an appraisal is proposed to be based on “covered transactions” rather than “Federally related transactions.”

    The ASC considered three options with respect to interpreting the phrase “working for or contracting with.” Under the first option, the phrase “working for or contracting with” would have been interpreted to include every appraiser on an AMC appraiser panel during the reporting period 14 in a particular State. The multiplier in this option would have included all appraisers on an AMC's appraiser panel in a particular State, including appraisers accepted by the AMC for consideration for future appraisal assignments.

    14 In the case of AMCs that have been in existence for more than a year, the reporting period would be 12 months. In the case of an AMC that has not been in existence for more than a year, the reporting period would be since the AMC commenced doing business.

    Under the second option, the phrase “working for or contracting with” would have been interpreted to include those appraisers engaged by the AMC to perform an appraisal on a covered transaction during the reporting period in a particular State. The time the appraiser would be considered in the calculation is at the point of engagement to perform a particular appraisal, regardless of whether the appraisal was fully performed during the reporting period. The ASC seeks comment in Question 3 below on whether this interpretation would be preferable for States to administer over the third option, which is set forth in the proposed rule.

    Under the third option, which is set forth in the proposed rule, the phrase “working for or contracting with” would include appraisers that performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction during the reporting period in a particular State. This option would exclude appraisers accepted by the AMC for consideration for future appraisal assignments as well as appraisers who performed appraisals in the past, but did not perform any appraisals in the reporting period. The AMC registry fee is not intended to result in duplicate fees for the same appraisal, even if there are multiple drafts of an appraisal. Therefore, the AMC registry fee is to be calculated based on an appraisal one time only.

    The ASC believes the third option imposes the minimum fee allowed under the statutory provisions of section 1109 and therefore imposes the least burden on AMCs. Based on the ASC's anticipated costs of overseeing States that elect to register and supervise AMCs, as well as the ASC's anticipated costs of maintaining the AMC Registry, the ASC believes the proposed annual AMC registry fee would adequately cover those costs while supporting other Title XI functions of the ASC as mandated by Congress, including further development of its grant programs, particularly for States.

    Collection and Transmission of Annual AMC Registry Fees

    Proposed § 1102.403 would implement collection and transmission of annual AMC registry fees for States that elect to register and supervise AMCs following the statutory scheme set forth in section 1117 and section 1109 as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed rule would require AMC registry fees to be collected and transmitted to the ASC on an annual basis by States that elect to register and supervise AMCs. Only those AMCs whose registry fees have been transmitted to the ASC would be eligible to be on the AMC Registry for the 12-month period following the payment of the fee.

    Under the proposed rule, States would have the flexibility to align a one-year period with any 12-month period, which may or may not be based on the calendar year. Just as many States do not use a calendar year for their existing appraiser credentialing process, the ASC believes that allowing States to set the 12-month period provides appropriate flexibility and will help States comply with the collection and transmission of AMC fees and reduce regulatory burden for State governments. States may choose to do this as they currently do for their appraisers, meaning some States have a date certain every year. Other States use, for example, the appraiser's date of birth (States could use AMC registration date similarly). The registration cycle would be left to the individual States to determine, but note that the statutory requirement in section 1109(a)(4) requires States that elect to register and supervise AMCs to submit AMC registry fees to the ASC annually.

    According to the AMC Rule, Federally regulated AMCs must report to the State or States in which they operate that have elected to register and supervise AMCs the information required to be submitted by the State pursuant to the ASC's policies, including: (i) Information regarding the determination of the AMC registry fee; and (ii) information required by the AMC Rule.15

    15 According to the AMC Rule, States are not required to identify Federally regulated AMCs operating in their States; nor are they responsible for supervising or enforcing a Federally regulated AMC's compliance with information submission requirements. A State is also not required to assess whether any licensing issues exist in that State concerning an owner of a Federally regulated AMC that may disqualify the AMC from being on the National Registry of AMCs. Rather, Federally regulated AMCs are subject to oversight by the Federal financial institutions regulators that supervise the financial institutions that own and control AMCs. The AMC Rule does not bar a State from collecting a fee from Federally regulated AMCs to offset the cost of collecting the AMC registry fee and the information related to the fee.

    III. Request for Comment

    The ASC requests comment on all aspects of this proposed rule, including specific requests for comment that appear throughout the Supplementary Information above. In addition, the ASC requests comments on the following questions:

    Question 1. The ASC requests comment on all aspects of the proposed annual AMC registry fee.

    Question 2. The ASC requests comment on the ASC's interpretation of the phrase “working for or contracting with.”

    Question 3. The ASC requests comment on the second option's interpretation of the phrase “working for or contracting with.” While the proposal defines “working for or contracting with” to include only those appraisers that performed an appraisal for the AMC during the reporting period, the second option would define “working for or contracting with” to mean “the AMC engaged an appraiser to perform an appraisal, regardless of whether the appraiser completed the appraisal during the reporting period.” The ASC is requesting comment on whether this would be an easier interpretation for the States to administer.

    Question 4. The ASC requests comment on all aspects of proposed collection and transmission of annual AMC registry fees.

    Question 5. The ASC requests comment on Federally regulated AMCs operating in a State that does not elect to register and supervise AMCs. Should the ASC collect information and fees directly from Federally regulated AMCs that wish to appear on the AMC Registry but operate in States that do not elect to register and supervise AMCs?

    Question 6. What barriers, if any, exist that would make it difficult for a State to implement the collection and transmission of AMC registry fees?

    Question 7. What costs (both direct in terms of fees and indirect in terms of administrative costs) would be associated with collection and transmission of AMC registry fees?

    Question 8. What aspects of the proposed rule, if any, would be challenging for States to implement? To the extent such challenges would exist, what alternative approaches do commenters suggest that would make implementation easier, while maintaining consistency with the statute?

    IV. Regulatory Analysis Paperwork Reduction Act

    Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain “information collection” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Under the PRA, the ASC may not conduct or sponsor, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule are being submitted to OMB for review and approval at the proposed rule stage by the ASC pursuant to section 3506 of the PRA and section 1320.11 of the OMB's implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320). The collection of information requirements in the proposed rule are found in §§ 1102.400-1102.403. This information is required to implement section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    Title of Information Collection: Collection and Transmission of Annual AMC Registry Fees.

    OMB Control Nos.: The ASC will be seeking new control numbers for these collections.

    Frequency of Response: Event generated.

    Affected Public: States; businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.

    Abstract State Recordkeeping Requirements

    States that elect to register and supervise AMCs would be required to collect and transmit annual AMC registry fees to the ASC. Section 1102.402 would establish the annual AMC registry fee for States that elect to register and supervise AMCs as follows: (1) In the case of an AMC that has been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction in such State during the previous year; and (2) in the case of an AMC that has not been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction in such State since the AMC commenced doing business. Performance of an appraisal means the appraisal service requested of an appraiser by the AMC was provided to the AMC.

    Section 1102.403 would require AMC registry fees to be collected and transmitted to the ASC on an annual basis by States that elect to register and supervise AMCs. Only those AMCs whose registry fees have been transmitted to the ASC would be eligible to be on the AMC Registry for the 12-month period following the payment of the fee. Section 1102.403 clarifies that States may align a one-year period with any 12-month period, which may, or may not, be based on the calendar year. The registration cycle is left to the individual States to determine.

    State Reporting Burden

    Section 1103 of Title XI, Functions of Appraisal Subcommittee, was amended by the Dodd-Frank Act to require the ASC to maintain a registry of AMCs that are either: (1) Registered with and subject to supervision by a State; or (2) Federally regulated AMCs. It is anticipated that on or before the effective date of this rule, the ASC will issue an ASC Bulletin to States that will address:

    1. When the AMC Registry will be open for States; and

    2. Reporting requirements (information required to be submitted by States in order to register AMCs on the AMC Registry).

    Burden Estimates:

    Total Number of Respondents: 500 AMCs, 55 States.

    Burden Total: 500 hours.

    The ASC has a continuing interest in public opinion regarding the ASC's collection of information. Comments regarding the questions set forth below may be sent to the OMB desk officer for the ASC by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington DC 20503, or by the Internet to [email protected], with copies to the ASC at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. However, the regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under the RFA is not required if an agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and publishes its certification and a brief explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the proposed rule. Based on its analysis, and for the reasons stated below, the ASC believes that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Section 1109 of Title XI provides that State appraiser certifying and licensing agencies that elect to register and supervise AMCs shall collect (1) from AMCs that have been in existence for more than a year, annual AMC registry fees in the amount of $25 (up to a maximum of $50) multiplied by the number of appraisers “working for or contracting with” an AMC in a State during the previous year; and (2) from AMCs that have not been in existence for more than a year, annual AMC registry fees in the amount of $25 (up to a maximum of $50) multiplied by an appropriate number to be determined by the ASC.16 The purpose of the statutory fee is to support the ASC's functions under Title XI. Because the ASC believes the minimum fee required by the statute would be adequate to support its functions, the proposed rule would adopt the minimum fee of $25 as set by statute. The proposed rule would also interpret the phrase “working for or contracting with” to mean those appraisers that performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction during the reporting period. For AMCs that have existed for more than a year, the formula would be $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction during the previous year. For AMCs that have not existed for more than a year, the $25 fee would be multiplied by the number of appraisers that performed an appraisal for the AMC on a covered transaction, since the AMC commenced doing business.

    16 12 U.S.C. 3338(a)(4)(B).

    Regarding the proposed fee for AMCs that have been in existence for more than a year, the ASC believes the proposed rule would impose the minimum fee allowed under the statutory provisions of section 1109. The ASC proposal would not exercise statutory discretion granted to the ASC to increase the fee above $25. Further, the ASC would interpret “working for or contracting with” to mean only those appraisers who actually performed an appraisal for the AMC, as opposed to all appraisers on the AMC's panel or all appraisers engaged, regardless of whether the assignment was performed. The ASC believes this formula would result in the lowest fee allowed by the statute and the ASC would be choosing not to exercise its authority to increase this minimum fee. Therefore, any burden produced is the result of statutory and not regulatory requirements.

    The ASC has also decided to propose the statutory minimum fee of $25 for AMCs that have not existed for a year. As required by statute, the ASC is proposing an appropriate number against which to multiply the $25 fee. The ASC is proposing to use the same multiple as used for AMCs that have existed for more than a year (i.e., the number of appraisers that have performed appraisal assignments for the AMC). It is possible that the ASC may have been able to propose a multiple that would result in a lower fee and would still be deemed appropriate. In this regard, the rule may create burden for AMCs that have not existed for more than a year, beyond the burden created by the statutory requirements alone.

    While some burden beyond the statutory requirements may result from the rule for AMCs that have not existed for more than a year, the ASC does not believe the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are only approximately 500 AMCs operating in the United States. The annual regulatory burden will only apply to new AMCs that have not existed for more than a year. Given the small number of AMCs currently in operation, it is unlikely that there will be a substantial number of AMCs that commence doing business in any given year. Further, the ASC is proposing the lowest possible fee of $25. Therefore, the ASC does not believe that the exercise of its discretion in setting the fee formula for such AMCs will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The collection and transmission to the ASC of AMC registry fees by the States would create some recordkeeping, reporting and compliance requirements. However, these collection and transmission requirements are imposed by the statute, not the proposed rule. Further, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts when the agency's rule directly regulates the small entities.17

    17 For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, “small entities” is defined in the RFA to include small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and small government jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). A “small business” is determined by application of SBA regulations and reference to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) classifications and size standards. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A “small organization” is any “not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). A “small governmental jurisdiction” is the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(5). Given these definitions, States that elect to establish licensing and certification authorities are not small entities and the burden on them is not relevant to this analysis.

    Based on its analysis, and for the reasons stated above, the ASC believes that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the ASC certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The ASC requests comment on all aspects of this analysis.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

    The ASC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the ASC considered whether the proposed rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). For the following reasons, the ASC finds that the proposed rule does not trigger the $100 million UMRA threshold. First, the mandates in the proposed rule apply only to those States that choose to establish an AMC registration and supervision system. Second, the costs specifically related to requirements set forth in statute are excluded from expenditures under the UMRA. Given that the proposed rule reflects requirements that arise from section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the UMRA cost estimate for the proposed rule is zero. For this reason, and for the other reasons cited above, the ASC has determined that this proposed rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, this proposed rule is not subject to section 202 of the UMRA.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1102

    Administrative practice and procedure, Appraisers, Banks, Banking, Freedom of information, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the ASC proposes to amend 12 CFR part 1102 as follows:

    PART 1102—APPRAISER REGULATION 1. The authority citation for part 1102 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 3348(a), 3332, 3335, 3338 (a)(4)(B), 3348(c), 5 U.S.C. 552a, 553(e); Executive Order 12600, 52 FR 23781 (3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235).

    2. Subpart E to part 1102 is added to read as follows: Subpart E—Collection and Transmission of Appraisal Management Company (AMC) Registry Fees Sec. 1102.400 Authority, purpose, and scope. 1102.401 Definitions. 1102.402 Establishing the Annual AMC Registry Fee. 1102.403 Collection and Transmission of Annual AMC Registry Fees.
    § 1102.400 Authority, purpose, and scope.

    (a) Authority. This subpart is issued by the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) under sections 1106 and 1109 (a)(4)(B) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Title XI), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)), 12 U.S.C. 3335, 3338 (a)(4)(B)).

    (b) Purpose. The purpose of this subpart is to implement section 1109 (a)(4)(B) of Title XI, 12 U.S.C. 3338.

    (c) Scope. This subpart applies to States that elect to register and supervise appraisal management companies pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 3353 and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

    § 1102.401 Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart:

    (a) AMC Registry means the national registry maintained by the ASC of those AMCs that meet the Federal definition of AMC, as defined in 12 U.S.C. 3350(11), are registered by a State or are Federally regulated, and have paid the annual AMC registry fee.

    (b) AMC Rule means the interagency final rule on minimum requirements for AMCs, 12 CFR 34.210-34.216; 12 CFR 225.190-225.196; 12 CFR 323.8 -323.14; 12 CFR 1222.20-1222.26 (2015).

    (c) ASC means the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council established under section 1102 (12 U.S.C. 3310) as it amended the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) by adding section 1011.

    (d) Performance of an appraisal means the appraisal service requested of an appraiser by the AMC was provided to the AMC.

    (e) State means any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

    (f) Terms incorporated by reference. Definitions of: Appraisal management company (AMC); appraisal management services; appraisal panel; consumer credit; covered transaction; dwelling; Federally regulated AMC are incorporated from the AMC Rule by reference.

    § 1102.402 Annual AMC registry fee.

    The annual AMC registry fee to be applied by States that elect to register and supervise AMCs is established as follows:

    (a) In the case of an AMC that has been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC in connection with a covered transaction in such State during the previous year; and

    (b) In the case of an AMC that has not been in existence for more than a year, $25 multiplied by the number of appraisers who have performed an appraisal for the AMC in connection with a covered transaction in such State since the AMC commenced doing business.

    § 1102.403 Collection and transmission of annual AMC registry fees.

    (a) Collection of annual AMC registry fees. States that elect to register and supervise AMCs pursuant to the AMC Rule shall collect an annual registry fee as established in § 1102.402 (a) from AMCs eligible to be on the AMC Registry.

    (b) Transmission of annual AMC registry fee. States that elect to register and supervise AMCs pursuant to the AMC Rule shall transmit AMC registry fees as established in § 1102.402 (a) to the ASC on an annual basis. Only those AMCs whose registry fees have been transmitted to the ASC will be eligible to be on the AMC Registry for the 12-month period subsequent to payment of the fee.

    By the Appraisal Subcommittee.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. James R. Park, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11914 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 18 CFR Part 1312 Protection of Archaeological Resources AGENCY:

    Tennessee Valley Authority.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposes to amend its regulations for the protection of archaeological resources by providing for the issuance of petty offense citations for violations of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and the Antiquities Act of 1906 (AA). Amending the regulations such that TVA law enforcement agents are authorized to issue citations will help prevent loss and destruction of these resources resulting from unlawful excavations and pillage.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Ralph E. Majors, Supervisor, Investigation Unit, TVA Police & Emergency Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 2D-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1401.

    Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ralph E. Majors, 865-632-4176.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Legal Authority

    These proposed amendments are promulgated under the authority of the TVA Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 831-831ee, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm, and the Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C.431, 432 & 433.

    II. Background and Proposed Amendments

    This proposed rule amends TVA's regulations implementing the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-95, as amended by Pub. L. 100-555, Pub. L. 100-588; 93 Stat. 721; 102 Stat. 2983; 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm) to provide for the issuance of petty offense citations by TVA's law enforcement agents for violations of ARPA or AA.

    Section 10(a) of ARPA requires the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Defense and the Tennessee Valley Authority to promulgate such uniform rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of ARPA. The first purpose of ARPA is “to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands.” 16 U.S.C. 470aa(b). The uniform regulations for ARPA originally were published on January 6, 1984 to implement the Act of 1979. The uniform regulations were then revised on January 26, 1995 to incorporate the amendments to ARPA promulgated by Congress in 1988.

    Section 10(b) of ARPA requires each Federal land manager (FLM) to promulgate such regulations, consistent with the uniform regulations under Section 10(a), as may be appropriate for the carrying out of the FLM's functions and authorities under the Act. Thus, Section 10(b) allows individual Federal agencies to tailor the uniform regulations to suit their own particular needs with a view to effectively implementing the authorities under the Act. TVA has adopted the uniform regulations as its own. See 18 CFR part 1312 (1984 and 1995). This proposed rule amends TVA's ARPA regulations by enabling TVA's law enforcement agents to issue petty offense citations for violations of ARPA 1 or AA 2 occurring on lands owned by the United States that are entrusted to TVA.3 The issuance of such petty offense citations would be consistent with the authority granted to TVA's law enforcement agents under the TVA Act, and advance the effective prosecution of violations of ARPA and AA.

    1 The prohibitions under ARPA are set out in Sections 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the Act. See 16 U.S.C. 470ee(a), (b) & (c). Any violation of these prohibitions is subject to the criminal sanctions prescribed in Section 6(d). See 16 U.S.C. 470ee(d). TVA's regulations implementing ARPA replicate these prohibitions and criminal sanctions. See 18 CFR 1312.4.

    2 The AA prohibits, among other things, the excavation, destruction or appropriation of an object of antiquity situated on federal lands without the permission of the head of the agency having jurisdiction over those lands. See 16 U.S.C. 433. Any violation of these provisions is subject to criminal sanctions. Id.

    3 Under Section 21(a) of the TVA Act, “[a]ll general penal statutes relating to larceny, embezzlement, conversion, or to the improper handling, retention, use or disposal of—property of the United States, shall apply to the—property of the Corporation and to—properties of the United States entrusted to the Corporation.” 16 U.S.C. 831t(a) (emphasis added).

    Under the TVA Act, the TVA Board of Directors “may designate employees of the Corporation to act as law enforcement agents” to “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the agent's presence” that occurs “on any lands or facilities owned or leased by the Corporation.” See 16 U.S.C. 831c-3. Based on this authority, the proposed rule amends TVA's regulations for protection of archaeological resources to authorize certain TVA law enforcement agents to issue petty offense citations for the violation of any provision of 16 U.S.C. 470ee or 16 U.S.C. 433. Those TVA law enforcement agents that are designated by the Director of TVA Police and Emergency Management for the purpose of conducting archaeological investigations shall have the authority to issue petty offense citations for ARPA or AA violations committed in the agent's presence on lands owned by the United States that are entrusted to TVA. For any such petty offense committed on lands entrusted to TVA, the citation may be issued at the site of the offense, or on non-TVA land (a) when the person committing the offense is in the process of fleeing the site of the offense to avoid arrest, or (b) to protect the archaeological artifacts involved in the commission of the offense.4 The citation will require the person charged with the violation to appear before a United States Magistrate Judge within whose jurisdiction the affected archaeological resource is located.5

    4See 16 U.S.C. 831c-3(c)(2) (authorizing TVA's law enforcement agents to exercise their law enforcement duties and powers on non-TVA lands (1) when the person to be arrested is in the process of fleeing to avoid arrest or (2) in conjunction with the protection of TVA property.)

    5 Section 3401 of Title 18, United States Code, provides that “any United States magistrate judge shall have jurisdiction to try persons accused of, and sentence persons convicted of, misdemeanors committed within that judicial district.” 18 U.S.C. 3401(a).

    III. Administrative Requirements A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Various Executive Orders Including E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; E.O. 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks; E.O. 13132, Federalism; E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments; and E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use; E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform Act

    This proposal would amend TVA's regulations for the protection of archaeological resources by providing for issuance of petty offense citations by TVA's law enforcement agents for violations of ARPA or AA. This proposal is not subject to Office of Management and Budget Review under Executive Order 12866. The proposal contains no Federal mandates for State, local, or tribal government or for the private sector. TVA has determined that these proposed amendments will not have a significant annual effect of $100 million or more or result in expenditures of $100 million in any one year by State, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector. Nor will the proposal have concerns for environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children, have significant effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or disproportionally impact low-income or minority populations. Accordingly, the proposal has no implications for any of the referenced authorities. TVA will continue to appropriately review specific requests in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., TVA is required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless the head of the agency certifies that the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. TVA's Chief Executive Officer has certified that this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This determination is based on the finding that the proposed amendments are directed toward Federal resource management to help prevent loss or destruction of archaeological resources, with no economic impact on the public.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 1312

    Administrative practice and procedure, Historic Preservation, Indians—lands, Penalties, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 18 CFR part 1312 as follows:

    PART 1312—PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: UNIFORM REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1312 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 96-95, 93 Stat. 721, amended, 102 Stat. 2983 (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm)(Sec. 10(a) &(b)); Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 831-831ee (2012). Related Authority: Pub. L. 59-209, 34 Stat. 225 (16 U.S.C. 432, 433); Pub. L. 86-523, 74 Stat. 220, 221 (16 U.S.C. 469), as amended, 88 Stat. 174 (1974); Pub. L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915 (16 U.S.C. 470a-t), as amended, 84 Stat. 204 (1970), 87 Stat. 139 (1973), 90 Stat. 1320 (1976), 92 Stat. 3467 (1978), 94 Stat. 2987 (1980); Pub. L. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469 (42 U.S.C. 1996);

    2. Amend § 1312.1 by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1312.1 Purpose

    (a) * * * These regulations also enable TVA's law enforcement agents to issue petty offense citations for violations of any provision of 16 U.S.C. 470ee or 16 U.S.C. 433.

    3. Amend § 1312.2 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 1312.2 Authority

    (c) Provisions pertaining to the issuance of petty offense citations are based on the duties and powers assigned to TVA's law enforcement agents under 16 U.S.C. 831-831ee.

    4. Amend § 1312.3 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
    § 1312.3 Definitions

    (j) “Director” means the Director of TVA Police and Emergency Management assigned the function and responsibility of supervising TVA employees designated as law enforcement agents under 16 U.S.C. 831c-3(a).

    5. Add § 1312.22, shown below, to Part 1312 to read as follows:
    § 1312.22 Issuance of Citations for Petty Offenses

    Any person who violates any provision contained in 16 U.S.C. 470ee or 16 U.S.C. 433 in the presence of a TVA law enforcement agent may be tried and sentenced in accordance with the provisions of section 3401 of Title 18, United States Code. Law enforcement agents designated by the Director for that purpose shall have the authority to issue a petty offense citation for any such violation, requiring any person charged with the violation to appear before a United States Magistrate Judge within whose jurisdiction the archaeological resource impacted by the violation is located. The term “petty offense” has the same meaning given that term under section 19 of Title 8, United States Code.

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Rebecca C. Tolene, Deputy General Counsel and Vice President, Natural Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11688 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration 19 CFR Part 351 [Docket No. 160506400-6400-01] RIN 0625-AB05 Modification of Regulation Regarding Written Argument: Establishing Word Limits for Case and Rebuttal Briefs in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) proposes to modify the regulation pertaining to written argument in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings and is seeking comments from parties. This modification, if adopted, is intended to establish word limits for submission of case and rebuttal briefs. This action is necessary to streamline the process contained in the current regulation, to better align with current Department practices and to reduce the strain on resources.

    DATES:

    To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received no later than June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. ITA-2016-0001, unless the commenter does not have access to the Internet. Commenters that do not have access to the internet may submit the original and one electronic copy of each set of comments by mail or hand delivery/courier. All comments should be addressed to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, Room 1870, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. Comments submitted to the Department will be uploaded to the eRulemaking Portal at www.Regulations.gov.

    The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.Regulations.gov. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason.

    Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Moustapha Sylla, Enforcement and Compliance Webmaster, at (202) 482-4685, email address: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Myrna Lobo at (202) 482-2371 or Michele Lynch at (202) 482-2879.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 351.309 of the Department's regulations sets forth limits for the submission of case and rebuttal briefs and provides guidance on what should be contained in these documents. However, unlike other Federal Agencies (e.g., the International Trade Commission, Department of Labor, or the Internal Revenue Service Tax Court),1 the Department does not currently limit the length of such briefs. As a result, submissions may contain lengthy or duplicative arguments in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. The review and summarization of these lengthy submissions consumes considerable resources. To reduce the strain on limited resources and streamline the process, the Department proposes amending 19 CFR 351.309 to impose word limits on case and rebuttal briefs.

    1 The United States Court of International Trade and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also impose word limits on briefs.

    The proposed revision would set forth a limit of 25,000 words in total for each party's case and rebuttal briefs. A party may decide on the number of words it chooses to allocate among its case brief and rebuttal brief, but the combined total between the two shall not exceed 25,000 words. Each case brief must contain a certification by the filing party or its representative, indicating the number of words used in the brief, and the number of unused words remaining for the rebuttal brief. Each rebuttal brief must contain a certification by the filing party or its representative indicating the number of words used and that the total combined word limit of 25,000 words has not been exceeded. The word limit will include all attachments, headings, footnotes, endnotes, and quotations used in the document; it will not include the table of contents, table of statutes, regulations and cases cited, and summary of arguments that preface the arguments in the brief, referenced in paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(2) of the revised regulation below. In determining the word count, a party may rely on the software program used to prepare the brief. Briefs in excess of the word count shall be rejected and shall be considered untimely.

    If an interested party challenges a party's word count, such a filing must be made within 48 hours of the filing of the final version of the case or reply brief in ACCESS.2 While parties may not be able to view another party's business proprietary case brief in ACCESS and may have to rely on being served the brief by the filing party, we note that 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(i) contains specific rules for service of briefs. Case briefs must be served on persons on the service list 3 the same day that they are filed with the Department by personal service or by overnight mail or courier the next day which we find provides adequate time for a party's challenge to be filed within the 48-hour window. 4 The Department will evaluate challenges received and determine the proper course of action.

    2 Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov.

    3 19 CFR 103(d)(2).

    4 For parties that have designated an agent to receive service that is located outside the United States, and served case briefs by first class airmail in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(i), the Department will consider on a case-by-case basis the time allowed to that party to challenge another party's word count.

    Where the Department finds that good cause exists, the word limit may be revised by the Department if a party makes such a request. Such requests must be received sufficiently in advance of the briefing deadlines to be considered.

    The Department is issuing this proposed rule to modify the regulation at issue pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) notice and comment procedures; we invite comments from all interested parties.

    Proposed Modification

    The Department proposes to modify 19 CFR 351.309, to include new paragraph (e) on word limits, as indicated below and to make conforming amendments to 19 CFR 351.309(a), (b), and (c). These modifications, if adopted, are intended to establish word limits for case and rebuttal briefs, as well as the accompanying requirements for imposing word limits. This rulemaking would be effective for proceedings initiated on or after 30 days following the date of publication of the final rule. This proposed rule makes additional minor edits to § 351.309: (1) The words “or countervailing duty” are being added to § 351.309(b)(1) and (c)(1)(iii) to be consistent with § 351.214(k), and (2) the Roman numerals (i) and (ii) in current § 351.309(e), which is proposed § 351.309(f), have been amended to be Arabic numbers (1) and (2) to be consistent with the other paragraphs of the regulation.

    The Department invites parties to comment on this proposed rule and the proposed effective date. Further, any party may submit comments expressing its disagreement with the Department's proposal and may propose an alternative approach.

    Classifications Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Executive Order 13132

    This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. A summary of the need for, objectives of and legal basis for this rule is provided in the preamble, and is not repeated here.

    The entities upon which this rulemaking could have an impact include foreign exporters and producers, some of whom are affiliated with U.S. companies, and U.S. importers. Enforcement & Compliance currently does not have information on the number of entities that would be considered small under the Small Business Administration's size standards for small businesses in the relevant industries. However, some of these entities may be considered small entities under the appropriate industry size standards. Although this proposed rule may indirectly impact small entities that are parties to individual antidumping or countervailing duty proceedings, it will not have a significant economic impact on any entities.

    The proposed action is merely to streamline the process contained in the current Department regulations. If the proposed rule is implemented, no entities would be required to undertake additional compliance measures or expenditures. Rather, the regulation, in this proposed rulemaking, is to reduce the burden placed on the Department and interested parties when lengthy or duplicative arguments are made in case briefs and then must be addressed. Because the proposed rule imposes limits on the submissions of case and rebuttal briefs in an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding, it does not place a burden on or directly impact any business entities. The proposed rule merely strengthens the current regulations to better align with current Departmental practices. Therefore, the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. For this reason, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and one has not been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping, Business and industry, Cheese, Confidential business information, Countervailing duties, Freedom of information, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    For the reasons stated, 19 CFR part 351 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES 1. The authority citation for 19 CFR part 351 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.; and 19 U.S.C. 3538.

    2. Section 351.309 is revised to read as follows:
    § 351.309 Written argument.

    (a) Introduction. Written argument may be submitted during the course of an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding. This section sets forth the time and word limits for submission of case and rebuttal briefs and provides guidance on what should be contained in these documents.

    (b) Written argument—(1) In general. In making the final determination in a countervailing duty investigation or antidumping investigation, or the final results of an administrative review, new shipper review, expedited antidumping or countervailing duty review, section 753 review, or section 762 review, the Secretary will consider written arguments in case or rebuttal briefs filed within the time and word limits in this section.

    (2) Written argument on request. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Secretary may request written argument on any issue from any person or U.S. Government agency at any time during a proceeding.

    (c) Case brief. (1) Any interested party or U.S. Government agency may submit a “case brief” within:

    (i) For a final determination in a countervailing duty investigation or antidumping investigation, or for the final results of a full sunset review, 50 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination or results of review, as applicable, unless the Secretary alters the time limit;

    (ii) For the final results of an administrative review, new shipper review, changed circumstances review, or section 762 review, 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review, unless the Secretary alters the time limit; or

    (iii) For the final results of an expedited sunset review, expedited antidumping or countervailing duty review, Article 8 violation review, Article 4/Article 7 review, or section 753 review, a date specified by the Secretary.

    (2) The case brief must present all arguments that continue in the submitter's view to be relevant to the Secretary's final determination or final results, including any arguments presented before the date of publication of the preliminary determination or preliminary results. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

    (d) Rebuttal brief. (1) Any interested party or U.S. Government agency may submit a “rebuttal brief” within five days after the time limit for filing the case brief, unless the Secretary alters this time limit.

    (2) The rebuttal brief may respond only to arguments raised in case briefs and should identify the arguments to which it is responding. As part of the rebuttal brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

    (e) Word limits. (1) Except with the consent of Enforcement & Compliance for good cause, each party shall use no more than 25,000 words total between its case and rebuttal briefs. The allocation of the 25,000 words between case and rebuttal briefs is left to each party. All attachments to such briefs, headings, footnotes, endnotes, and quotations shall be included in the word limitation. The summary of arguments and the table of statutes, regulations and cases cited referenced in paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(2) of this section shall not be included in the word limitation.

    (2) The case brief, if any, shall contain a certification by the party or its representative indicating the number of words in the brief and the number of words available for the rebuttal brief. The rebuttal brief, if any, shall contain a certification by the party or its representative indicating the number of words in the brief and certifying that the total word limit of 25,000 has not been exceeded in the party's combined case and rebuttal brief word limit. The party filing the certification may rely on the word count of the software program used to prepare the brief. Briefs in excess of the word limitation shall be rejected and shall be considered untimely. Challenges to opposing party's word count must be filed with the agency within 48 hours of the filing of the case or reply brief and accompanying certifications or the challenge will not be considered. If a person has designated an agent to receive service that is located outside the United States, and served briefs by first class airmail in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(i), the agency will consider on a case-by-case basis the time allowed to that person to challenge a party's word count.

    (f) Comments on adequacy of response and appropriateness of expedited sunset review—(1) In general. Where the Secretary determines that respondent interested parties provided inadequate response to a notice of initiation (see § 351.218(e)(1)(ii)) and has notified the International Trade Commission as such under § 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), interested parties (and industrial users and consumer organizations) that submitted a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation under § 351.218(d)(3) may file comments on whether an expedited sunset review under section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and § 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) or (C) is appropriate based on the adequacy of responses to the notice of initiation. These comments may not include any new factual information or evidence (such as supplementation of a substantive response to the notice of initiation) and are limited to five pages.

    (2) Time limit for filing comments. Comments on adequacy of response and appropriateness of expedited sunset review must be filed not later than 70 days after the date publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation.

    [FR Doc. 2016-11864 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 175, 176, 177, and 178 [Docket No. FDA-2016-F-1253] Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council; Filing of Food Additive Petition AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council proposing that we amend and/or revoke specified regulations to no longer provide for the food contact use of specified ortho-phthalates.

    DATES:

    The food additive petition was filed on April 12, 2016. Submit either electronic or written comments by July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-F-1253 for “Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science In The Public Interest, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council; Filing of Food Additive Petition.” 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:

    Kelly Randolph, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1188.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 6B4815), submitted by Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council, c/o Mr. Thomas Neltner, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009. The submission proposes that we amend and/or revoke specified food additive regulations under 21 CFR parts 175, 176, 177, and 178 to no longer provide for the food contact use of specified ortho-phthalates. We have filed this portion of the submission as a food additive petition. The submission also requests that we amend our regulations in 21 CFR part 181 related to prior-sanctioned uses of specified ortho-phthalates and issue a new regulation in 21 CFR part 189 prohibiting the use of eight specific ortho-phthalates. We have declined to file these portions of the submission as a food additive petition.

    II. Amendment of 21 CFR Parts 175, 176, 177, and 178

    In accordance with the procedures for amending or revoking a food additive regulation in § 171.130 (21 CFR 171.130), the petition asks us to amend parts 175, 176, 177, and 178 to no longer provide for the food contact use of certain specified ortho-phthalates. The specified ortho-phthalates and corresponding regulations in parts 175, 176, 177, and 178 are as follows:

    § 175.105 Adhesives

    Butyl benzyl phthalate (CAS No. 85-68-7), Butyldecyl phthalate (CAS No. 89-19-0), Butyloctyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-78-6), Butyl phthalate butyl glycolate (CAS No. 85-70-1), Di(butoxyethyl) phthalate (CAS No.117-83-9), Dibutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-74-2), Dicyclohexyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-61-7), Di(2-ethylhexyl)hexahydrophthalate, Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7), Diethyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-66-2), Dihexyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-75-3), Dihydroabietylphthalate (CAS No. 26760-71-4), Diisobutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-69-5), Diisodecyl phthalate (CAS No. 26761-40-0), Diisooctyl phthalate (CAS No. 27554-26-3), Dimethyl phthalate (CAS No. 131-11-3), Dioctyl phthalate (CAS No. 117-84-0), Diphenyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-62-8), Ethyl phthalyl ethyl glycolate (CAS No. 84-72-0), Methyl phthalyl ethyl glycolate (CAS No. 85-71-2), Octyldecyl phthalate (CAS No. 119-07-3), and Diallyl phthalate (CAS No. 131-17-9).

    § 175.300 Resinous and Polymeric Coatings

    Dibutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-74-2), Diethyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-66-2), Diisooctyl phthalate (CAS No. 27554-26-3), Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7), and Diisodecyl phthalate (CAS No. 26761-40-0).

    § 175.320 Resinous and Polymeric Coatings for Polyolefin Films

    Butyl phthalyl butyl glycolate (CAS No. 85-70-1), Diethyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-66-2), and Ethyl phthalyl ethyl glycolate (CAS No. 84-72-0).

    § 176.170 Components of Paper and Paperboard in Contact With Aqueous and Fatty Foods

    Butylbenzyl phthalate (CAS No. 85-68-7), Dibutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-74-2), Dicyclohexyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-61-7), and Diallyl phthalate (CAS No. 131-17-9).

    § 176.180 Components of Paper and Paperboard in Contact With Dry Food

    Butyl benzyl phthalate (CAS No. 85-68-7) and Diallyl phthalate (CAS No. 131-17-9).

    § 176.210 Defoaming Agents Used in the Manufacture of Paper and Paperboard

    Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7).

    § 176.300 Slimicides

    Dibutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-74-2), Didecyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-77-5), and Dodecyl phthalate (CAS No. 21577-80-0).

    § 177.1010 Acrylic and Modified Acrylic Plastics, Semirigid and Rigid

    Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7) and Dimethyl phthalate (CAS No. 131-11-3).

    § 177.1200 Cellophane

    Castor oil phthalate with adipic acid and fumaric acid diethylene glycol polyester (CAS No. 68650-73-7), Castor oil phthalate, hydrogentated (FDA No. 977037-59-4), Dibutylphthalate (CAS No. 84-74-2), Dicyclohexyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-61-7), Di(2-ethylhexy) phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7), Diisobutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-69-5), and Dimethylcyclohexyl phthalate (CAS No. 1322-94-7).

    § 177.1210 Closures With Sealing Gaskets for Food Containers

    Diisodecyl phthalate (CAS No. 26761-40-0).

    § 177.1460 Melamine-Formaldehyde Resins in Molded Articles

    Dioctyl phthalate (CAS No. 117-84-0).

    § 177.1590 Polyester Elastomers

    Dimethyl orthophthalate (CAS No. 131-11-3).

    § 177.2420 Polyester Resins, Cross-Linked

    Butyl benzyl phthalate (CAS No. 85-68-7), Dibutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-74-2), and Dimethyl phthalate (CAS No. 131-11-3).

    § 177.2600 Rubber Articles Intended for Repeated Use

    Diphenylguanidine phthalate (CAS No. 17573-13-6), Amyl decyl phthalate (CAS No. 7493-81-4), Dibutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-74-2), Didecyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-77-5), Diisodecyl phthalate (CAS No. 26761-40-0), Dioctyl phthalate (CAS No. 117-84-0), and Octyl decyl phthalate (CAS No. 119-07-3).

    § 178.3740 Plasticizers in Polymeric Substances

    Butylbenzyl phthalate (CAS No. 85-68-7), Dicyclohexyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-61-7), Diisononyl phthalate (CAS No. 28553-12-0), Dihexyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-75-3), and Diphenyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-62-8).

    § 178.3910 Surface Lubricants Used in the Manufacture of Metallic Articles

    Diisodecyl phthalate (CAS No. 26761-40-0), Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7), and Diethyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-66-2).

    The petitioners request FDA to consider that ortho-phthalates are a class of chemically and pharmacologically related substances, and state that there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm for the food contact uses of the specified ortho-phthalates. If we determine that new data are available that justify amending the specified food additive regulations in parts 175, 176, 177, and 178 so that they will no longer provide for the use of the ortho-phthalates, we will publish such an amendment of these regulations in the Federal Register, as set forth in § 171.130 and § 171.100 (21 CFR 171.100).

    III. Amendment of 21 CFR 181.27

    A portion of the submission relates to uses of five ortho-phthalates that are listed in § 181.27 as prior-sanctioned. Those five ortho-phthalates are as follows: Diethyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-66-2), Ethyl phthalyl ethyl glycolate (CAS No. 84-72-0), Butyl phthalyl butyl glycolate (CAS No. 85-70-1), Diisooctyl phthalate (CAS No. 27554-26-3), and Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7). FDA has not filed as part of the food additive petition the request to revoke these prior sanctions. Section 201(s) of the FD&C Act exempts prior-sanctioned materials from the definition of a food additive (21 U.S.C. 321(s)). Therefore, the request to revoke the prior-sanction for these substances is not within the scope of a food additive petition under section 409(b) of the FD&C Act (“a petition proposing the issuance of a regulation prescribing the conditions under which such [food] additive may be safety used”). We have informed petitioners that they may submit a citizen petition under 21 CFR 10.30 requesting that FDA take this action.

    IV. New Regulation in 21 CFR Part 189

    A portion of the submission requests that FDA prohibit the food contact use of the following eight ortho-phthalates: Diisobutyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-69-5), Di-n-butyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-74-2), Butyl benzyl phthalate (CAS No. 85-68-7), Dicyclohexyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-61-7), Di-n-hexyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-75-3), Diisooctyl phthalate (CAS No. 27554-26-3), Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7), and Diisononyl phthalate (CAS No. 28553-12-0). The submission requests that FDA take this action by issuing a new regulation in part 189. FDA has not filed as part of the food additive petition the request to issue the proposed regulation in part 189. Such a request is not within the scope of a food additive petition under section 409(b) of the FD&C Act (“a petition proposing the issuance of a regulation prescribing the conditions under which such [food] additive may be safety used”). We have informed petitioners that they may submit a citizen petition under 21 CFR 10.30 requesting that FDA take this action.

    We also are reviewing the potential environmental impact of the petitioners' requested action. The petitioners have claimed a categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under 21 CFR 25.32(m). In accordance with regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.6(b)), we are placing the environmental document submitted with the subject petition on public display at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) so that interested persons may review the document. If we determine that the petitioners' claim of categorical exclusion is warranted and that neither an environmental assessment nor environmental impact statement is required, we will announce our determination in the Federal Register if this petition results in an amended regulation(s). If we determine that the claim of categorical exclusion is not warranted we will place the environmental assessment on public display at the Division of Dockets Management and provide notice in the Federal Register announcing its availability for review and comment.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Dennis M. Keefe, Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Additive Safety and Applied Nutrition.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11866 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 800 [Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 167S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 16XS501520] Petition To Initiate Rulemaking; Ensuring That Companies With a History of Financial Insolvency, and Their Subsidiary Companies, Are Not Allowed to Self-Bond Coal Mining Operations AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of petition to initiate rulemaking and request for comments on the petition.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), seek comments concerning a petition, submitted pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA or the Act), requesting that we amend our self-bonding regulations to ensure that companies with a history of financial insolvency, and their subsidiary companies, are not allowed to self-bond coal mining operations. We are requesting comments on the merits of the petition and the rule changes suggested in the petition. Comments received will assist the Director of OSMRE in making the decision whether to grant or deny the petition.

    DATES:

    Electronic or written comments: We will accept written comments on the petition on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The petition has been assigned Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006. Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail/Hand-Delivery/Courier: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, Room 252 SIB, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Please include the Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Kuhns, Division of Regulatory Support, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: 202-208-2860; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. How does the petition process operate? II. What action does the petition request that we take? III. How may I view the petition and exhibits? IV. How do I submit comments on the petition? V. Procedural Matters and Required Determinations I. How does the petition process operate?

    Section 201(g) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1201(g), provides that any person may petition the Director of OSMRE to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation adopted under SMCRA. It also specifies that the Director shall either grant or deny the petition within 90 days after receipt. OSMRE's regulations at 30 CFR 700.12 further implement this statutory provision.

    Under 30 CFR 700.12(c), the Director is required to determine if the petition sets forth facts, technical justification and law which may provide a reasonable basis for issuance, amendment or repeal of a regulation. If the Director determines that the petition has a reasonable basis, a notice shall be published in the Federal Register seeking comments from the public on the proposed change specified in the petition. This Federal Register document is the notice required by the regulations.

    At the close of the comment period, the Director decides to either grant or deny the petition, in whole or in part. We will publish notice of that decision in the Federal Register. If the Director grants the petition, we will then initiate rulemaking proceedings in which we again seek public comment before adopting a final rule. If the Director denies a petition, we notify the petitioner of the reasons for the decision not to initiate any rulemaking action pursuant to the petition. In accordance with 30 CFR 700.12(d), the Director's decision on a petition is a final decision for the Department, which means that the petitioner is not entitled to review by the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

    II. What action does the petition request that we take?

    On March 3, 2016, we received from WildEarth Guardians a petition for rulemaking requesting that OSMRE amend its self-bonding regulations at 30 CFR 800.23 to ensure that companies with a history of financial insolvency, and their subsidiary companies, are not allowed to self-bond coal mining operations. The petition claims that current rules allow regulatory authorities to accept self-bond guarantees from subsidiary companies that are technically insolvent due to the financial status of their parent corporations, potentially shifting the financial burden for substantial mine reclamation costs to American taxpayers in the event the companies do not have the financial resources to complete their mine reclamation obligations.

    In its petition, WildEarth Guardians provides draft regulatory language that it alleges will ensure that any entity, including non-parent corporate guarantors, will be subject to appropriate financial scrutiny before being allowed to self-bond. Specifically, WildEarth Guardians requests that we revise our self-bonding regulations to define ultimate parent corporation, limit the total amount of present and proposed self-bonds to not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the ultimate parent corporation's tangible net worth in the United States, and require that both the self-bonding applicant and its parent corporation meet any self-bonding financial conditions in 30 CFR 800.23, including the requirement that neither have filed for bankruptcy in the last five (5) years.

    III. How may I view the petition and exhibits?

    The petition and exhibits can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.regulations.gov. The petition has been assigned Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006. The petition and exhibits also are available for inspection at the location listed under ADDRESSES.

    IV. How do I submit comments on the petition? General Guidance

    We are seeking comment on the merits of the petition and the requested rule changes. The energy industry is in the midst of a major transformation. Low domestic and global demand for coal, plentiful low-cost shale gas and fuel switching and coal power plant retirements by utilities, the highest coal stockpile inventories in 25 years, unsuccessful business decisions, and projections of declining coal demand have created significant challenges for the coal industry.

    SMCRA allows States to accept self-bonds, but requires that the bond be sufficient to assure the completion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be performed by the regulatory authority in the event of forfeiture. 30 U.S.C. 1259(a). Eighteen States allow self-bonding under their regulations and eleven states currently have self-bonded sites. According to the most recent data from the States, outstanding self-bond obligations total approximately $3.86 billion, much of which involves non-parent guarantees.

    Several large coal companies have filed for bankruptcy protection. These companies provided, and several States elected to accept, over $2.4 billion in self-bonds to ensure that lands and waters impacted by coal mining were restored. Several large coal mining companies have recently filed for bankruptcy, raising concerns for State regulators, OSMRE, the Department of the Interior, Members of Congress, citizens and many other stakeholders.

    There is a concern about whether disturbed coal mines will be reclaimed by the bankrupt companies; whether the bankrupt companies will abandon their legal obligations to restore impacted lands and waters; whether the costs to restore the land and water will be shifted to taxpayers; and, whether the existing regulations are adequate to protect people, communities, and the environment as envisioned by Congress when it enacted SMCRA.

    OSMRE will evaluate whether the changes proposed in the rulemaking petition are necessary or adequate to address deficiencies in the current regulations and practices. We ask all States, stakeholders and the public to consider whether the changes proposed by petitioners, or other changes beyond what the petitioners have proposed, should be made. We also request you articulate what those changes should be and why they should be made.

    We will review and consider all comments submitted to the addresses listed above (see ADDRESSES) by the close of the comment period (see DATES).

    Please include the Docket ID “OSM-2016-0006” at the beginning of all written comments. We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or at locations other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES) will be included in the docket or considered in the development of a proposed rule.

    Public Availability of Comments

    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—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Public Hearing

    We will not hold a public hearing on the petition. The petitioner did not request a hearing and we have determined under 30 CFR 700.12(c) that no hearing is necessary.

    V. Procedural Matters and Required Determinations

    This notice of availability is not a proposed or final rule, policy, or guidance. Therefore, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 12630, 13132, 12988, 13175, and 13211. We will conduct the analyses required by these laws and executive orders only if we decide to grant the petition and develop a proposed rule.

    In developing this notice of availability, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, section 15).

    This notice of availability is not subject to the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), because no proposed action, as described in 40 CFR 1508.18(a) and (b), yet exists. This notice of availability only seeks public comment on whether the Director should grant the petition and initiate rulemaking. If the Director ultimately grants the petition, we will prepare the appropriate NEPA compliance documents as part of the rulemaking process.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 800

    Environmental protection, Bonding and Insurance requirements, Surface coal mining, Reclamation.

    Dated: May 9, 2016. Joseph G. Pizarchik, Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11755 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 901 [SATS No. AL-079-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2016-0005; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 166S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 16XS501520] Alabama Regulatory Program AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Alabama regulatory program (Alabama program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama proposes revisions to its Program to closely follow the Federal regulations regarding awarding of appropriate costs and expenses including attorneys' fees.

    This document gives the times and locations that the Alabama program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.

    DATES:

    We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., c.t., June 20, 2016. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on June 14, 2016. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., c.t. on June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. AL-079-FOR by any of the following methods:

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, Alabama 35209

    Fax: (205) 290-7280

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: The amendment has been assigned Docket ID OSM-2016-0005. If you would like to submit comments go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to review copies of the Alabama program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, you must go to the address listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSMRE's Birmingham Field Office or the full text of the program amendment is available for you to review at www.regulations.gov.Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, Alabama 35209, Telephone: (205) 290-7282, Email: [email protected].

    In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Alabama Surface Mining Commission, 1811 Second Ave., P.O. Box 2390, Jasper, Alabama 35502-2390, Telephone: (205) 221-4130.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290-7282. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background on the Alabama Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Alabama Program

    Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Alabama program effective May 20, 1982. You can find background information on the Alabama program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Alabama program in the May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 22030). You can also find later actions concerning the Alabama program and program amendments at 30 CFR 901.10, 901.15 and 901.16.

    II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated March 18, 2016 (Administrative Record No. AL-0669), Alabama sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) at its own initiative. Below is a summary of the changes proposed by Alabama. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES.

    Alabama Code 880-X-5A-.35—Assessment of Costs

    Alabama proposes to revise language providing appropriate costs and expenses to any party only if a person initiated or participated in a proceeding in bad faith for the purpose of harassing or embarrassing the permittee or State Regulatory Authority.

    III. Public Comment Procedures

    Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.

    Electronic or Written Comments

    If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.

    We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or sent to an address other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Public Hearing

    If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., c.t. on June 6, 2016. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.

    To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

    Public Meeting

    If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

    IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rulemaking is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

    Other Laws and Executive Orders Affecting Rulemaking

    When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment. We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 901

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: April 7, 2016. Ervin J. Barchenger, Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11246 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0158] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, Lawrenceburg, IN AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation for all waters of the Ohio River, surface to bottom, extending from Ohio River mile 492.0 to 495.5 at Lawrenceburg, IN, June 18, 2016 with an alternate date of June 19, 2016. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Lawrenceburg, IN, during a high-speed boat race on June 18, 2016. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0158 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Andrew Prescott, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 502-779-5334, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On January 29, 2016, the Breakwater Powerboat Association notified the Coast Guard that it will be sponsoring a high-speed boat race from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on June 18, 2016. Alternate time and date will be from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. June 19, 2016. The boat race will take place at Ohio River mile 492.0 to 495.5 in the vicinity of Lawrenceburg, IN. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a high- speed regatta would be a safety concern for anyone within in the regulated area.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators and the navigable waters within the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on June 18, 2016. The special local regulation would cover all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile 492.0 to 495.5 in Lawrenceburg, IN. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled high-speed regatta. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321- 4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation lasting less than 12 hours that would prohibit entry within the regulated area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C 1233.

    2. Add temporary § 100.35T08-0158 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T08-0158 Special Local Regulation; Ohio River Mile 492.0 to 495.5, Lawrenceburg, IN.

    (a) Location. All waters of the Ohio River beginning at mile marker 492.0 and ending at mile marker 495.5 at Lawrenceburg, IN.

    (b) Periods of Enforcement. This rule will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on June 18, 2016, unless the event is delayed due to weather. If delayed, it will be enforced from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. June 19, 2016. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulation.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.801 of this part, entry into this area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the area must request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative. U. S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.

    Dated: April 29, 2016. R.V. Timme, Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11823 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0189; FRL-9946-61-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Pennsylvania state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This SIP revision pertains to Pennsylvania's regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials found in section 129.74 of the Pennsylvania Code. This regulation meets the requirement to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's control techniques guidelines (CTG) standards for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. EPA is, therefore, proposing approval of the revision to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0189 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment. EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). In subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA has addressed how states can meet the RACT requirements of the CAA.

    CTGs are intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities information that should assist them in determining RACT for VOCs from various sources of fiberglass boat manufacturing. EPA has not published a previous CTG for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, but did publish an assessment of VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing in 1990. The 1990 assessment defined the nature and scope of VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing, characterized the industry, estimated per plant and national VOC emissions, and identified and evaluated potential control options. In 2001, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV (2001 NESHAP). The 2001 NESHAP established organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions limits based on low-HAP resins and gel coats and low-emitting resin application technology. Several of the air pollution control districts in California have specific regulations that control VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing operations as part of their regulations for limiting VOC emissions from polyester resin operations. Several other states also have regulations that address VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing as part of polyester resin operations. After reviewing the 1990 VOC assessment, the 2001 NESHAP, and existing California district and other state VOC emission reduction approaches, and after considering information obtained since the issuance of the 2001 NESHAP, EPA developed a CTG entitled Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-004; September 2008).

    The CTG for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials provides control recommendations for reducing VOC emissions from the use of gel coats, resins, and materials used to clean application equipment in fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. This CTG applies to facilities that manufacture hulls or decks of boats from fiberglass, or build molds to make fiberglass boat hulls or decks. EPA's 2008 CTG recommends that the following operations should be covered: Open molding resin and gel coat operations (these include pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling gel coat, and tooling resin); resin and gel coat mixing operations; and resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations.

    EPA's 2008 CTG recommends the following VOC reduction measures: VOC emission limits for molding resins and gel coats; work practices for resin and gel coat mixing containers; and VOC content and vapor pressure limits for cleaning materials. Recommended VOC emission limits for open molding resin and gel coat operations are shown in Table 1. A more detailed explanation for determining the VOC emission limits for molding resin and gel coats can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0189 and available online at www.regulations.gov.

    Table 1—Monomer VOC Content Limitations for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations Materials Application method Individual
  • monomer VOC
  • content or
  • weight average
  • monomer VOC
  • content limit
  • (weight percent)
  • Production Resin Atomized (spray) 28 Production Resin Nonatomized 35 Pigmented Gel Coat Any Method 33 Clear Gel Coat Any Method 48 Tooling Resin Atomized 30 Tooling Resin Nonatomized 39 Tooling Gel Coat Any Method 40
    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On March 2, 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted to EPA a SIP revision concerning implementation of RACT requirements for the control of VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Pennsylvania is adopting EPA's CTG standards for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, including the emission limits found in Table 1. The regulation is contained in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129 (relating to standards for sources), and this SIP revision seeks to add 25 Pa. Code section 129.74 (control of VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing materials) to the Pennsylvania SIP. In addition to adopting EPA's CTG standards, 25 Pa. Code section 129.74 includes numerous terms and definitions to support the interpretation of the measures, as well as work practices for cleaning; compliance and monitoring requirements; sampling and testing; and record keeping requirements. EPA finds the provisions in 25 Pa. Code section 129.74 identical to the CTG standards for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials and is therefore approvable in accordance with sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2)(A) of the CAA. For more detailed analysis by EPA of how 25 Pa. Code section 129.74 addresses the CTG, see the TSD for this rulemaking.

    This SIP revision also notes that the requirements of 25 Pa. Code section 129.74 supersede the requirements of a RACT permit issued under 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91-129.95 prior to December 19, 2015 to the owner or operator of a source subject to 25 Pa. Code section 129.74 to control, reduce, or minimize VOCs from a fiberglass boat manufacturing process, except to the extent the RACT permit contains more stringent requirements.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the March 2, 2016 Pennsylvania SIP revision pertaining to adding 25 Pa. Code section 129.74 to the Pennsylvania SIP because section 129.74 meets the requirement to adopt RACT for sources covered by EPA's CTG standards for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 25 Pa. Code section 129.74 into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the EPA Region III office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule concerning Pennsylvania's control of VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing materials does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 3, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11845 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0054; FRL-9946-67-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Control of Emissions From Various Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment From Kraft Pulp Mills AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve a revision to the Maryland state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on October 15, 2014. The SIP revision adds and amends regulations in the SIP which control emissions from various processes and fuel-burning equipment at Kraft pulp mills. The SIP revision includes the following: (1) A new definition for “NOX Ozone Season Allowance;” (2) a new regulation with nitrogen oxides (NOX) limits for fuel-burning equipment located at Kraft pulp mills; (3) a removal and relocation of existing NOX reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for Kraft pulp mills into another Maryland regulation; and (4) a revised regulation which clarifies the volatile organic compound (VOC) control system and emission requirements for several process installations at Kraft pulp mills. EPA proposes a conditional approval because the new Maryland definition references the defunct Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and because MDE provided a commitment to remove all references to CAIR within the definition of “NOX Ozone Season Allowance” and submit a revised definition as a new SIP revision, no later than a year from EPA finalizing this conditional approval. Upon timely meeting of this commitment, EPA will propose to convert the conditional approval of the SIP revision to a final approval. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments on EPA's proposed conditional approval must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0054 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 15, 2014, EPA received a revision to the State of Maryland's SIP submitted by MDE. The SIP revision includes Maryland regulations which control emissions from various processes and fuel-burning equipment at Kraft pulp mills and which clarify the VOC control system and requirements for several process installations at Kraft pulp mills.

    I. Background

    In the October 15, 2014 SIP revision, MDE's submittal included a definition for “NOX Ozone Season Allowance” which references a defunct CAA program, CAIR. EPA discussed with MDE the need to remove all references to CAIR within the definition of “NOX Ozone Season Allowance,” for EPA to approve the October 15, 2014 SIP revision.

    In May 2005, EPA promulgated CAIR which required certain states to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). After litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) which remanded CAIR to EPA, EPA promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and to help states reduce air pollution and attain CAA standards. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).1 In subsequent, additional litigation, CSAPR was initially vacated by the D.C. Circuit but upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA began implementing CSAPR in January 2015 as CAIR's replacement. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking issued after DC Circuit lifted stay on CSAPR).2

    1 CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOx emissions in 28 states in the eastern United States that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    2 Thus, after December 31, 2014, CAIR was replaced by CSAPR and was a defunct, moot CAA program no longer implemented by EPA.

    On September 29, 2015, EPA received a supplemental letter from MDE committing to remove all references to CAIR within the definition of “NOX Ozone Season Allowance,” as a SIP revision, no later than a year from EPA finalizing our conditional approval of the SIP submittal. Upon final approval of the revised definition of “NOX Ozone Season Allowance” as a SIP revision, EPA will convert the conditional approval of the October 15, 2014 SIP submission with the regulations and requirements for Kraft pulp mills to a full approval.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    MDE's SIP revision includes amended and new regulations in order to control emissions from various processes and fuel-burning equipment at Kraft pulp mills. The SIP revision submittal includes an amendment to the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.01.01—“General Administrative Provisions” in order to add a definition for “NOX Ozone Season Allowance.” This definition was added to the COMAR by Maryland because the NOX emission limitations for the Kraft pulp mills rely on use of NOX allowances. Because the definition in COMAR 26.11.01.01 makes references to CAIR which sunset on December 31, 2014 as EPA is now implementing CSAPR, EPA cannot fully approve the definition for “NOX Ozone Season Allowance.” MDE has committed to remove references to CAIR and submit a revised definition in a separate SIP submittal. The October 15, 2014 SIP revision also seeks to add to the SIP COMAR 26.11.14.07—“Control of NOX Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment” in order to: (1) Establish the applicability and NOX emission standards to any fuel burning equipment with a maximum design heat input capacity of greater than 250 million British thermal unit (Btu) per hour located at any Kraft pulp mill; (2) establish NOX emission limits for Kraft pulp mills including an emission rate of 0.70 pounds of NOX per million Btu, an emission limit of 947 tons of NOX during the period May 1 through September 30 of each year, and an emission rate of 0.99 pounds of NOX per million Btu during the period of October 1 through April 30 of each year; (3) establish the requirements for demonstrating compliance with the NOX limits; (4) permit pulp mills to secure up to 95 allowances for each period in which a mill exceeds the 947 ton emission cap from May through September 30 of each year; (5) specify the process of achieving compliance through the use of allowances; and (6) establish monitoring and reporting requirements. The NOX emission limitations of 0.70 pounds of NOX per million Btu from May 1 through September 30 of each year and 0.99 pounds of NOX per million Btu during the period of October 1 through April 30 of each year were previously included in COMAR 26.11.09.08 and are already included in the Maryland SIP. See 69 FR 56170 (September 20, 2004). Thus, these provisions are not new to the SIP, but merely relocated. Pursuant to the NOX SIP Call at COMAR 26.11.29 and .30, the sole Kraft pulp mill in Maryland was allocated 947 allowances for NOX emissions. COMAR 26.11.29 and .30 are in the existing Maryland SIP. With this SIP revision, Maryland seeks to include the 947 ton NOX cap in the Maryland SIP at COMAR 26.11.14.07. Thus, the October 15, 2014 SIP revision simply relocates the 947 ton NOX cap within the Maryland SIP.

    The SIP revision also includes an amended COMAR 26.11.09.08—“Control of NOX Emissions for Major Stationary Sources” in order to remove from this provision subsection (C)(h) which has NOX requirements for the fuel burning equipment at non-electric generating facilities. Maryland requests removal of this subsection (C)(h) of COMAR 26.11.09.08 from the Maryland SIP because the NOX requirements for pulp mills to meet a NOX emissions rate of 0.70 pounds per million Btu during the period May 1 to September 30 of each year and 0.99 during the period October 1 through April 30 of each year have been relocated to COMAR 26.11.14.07.

    Finally, the SIP revision also includes a revised COMAR 26.11.14.06—“Control of Volatile Organic Compounds” in order to: (1) Clarify that air emissions from brown stock washers are to be collected and combusted; (2) clarify that evaporators, digester blow tank systems, and brown stock wasters shall be controlled by removing 90 percent (90%) or more of the condensate VOC loading by demonstrating a VOC removal or destruction efficiency of the condensate stream stripper of 90% or greater or a system analysis of these units; and (3) specify approvable testing methods to demonstrate the collective VOC removal efficiency of the condensate steam stripper and other control systems as required. This provision will reduce VOC emissions from Kraft pulp mills and will strengthen the Maryland SIP.

    A full explanation of the SIP revision and EPA's analysis of the revision are contained in the technical support document (TSD) prepared in support of this proposed rulemaking. A copy of this TSD is located in the docket of this proposed rulemaking and is available online at www.regulations.gov.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the Maryland October 15, 2014 SIP revision concerning the regulations and requirements to control NOX and VOC emissions from various processes and fuel-burning equipment at Kraft pulp mills as it strengthens the SIP with provisions related to controlling emissions of NOX and VOC. Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA's proposal is to conditionally approve the October 15, 2014 SIP revision because Maryland committed in a letter dated September 29, 2015 to submit to EPA a SIP revision removing all references to CAIR, a defunct CAA program, within the definition of “NOX Ozone Season Allowance” in COMAR 26.11.01.01, no later than a year from EPA finalizing our conditional approval.

    When EPA approves the revised definition of “NOX Ozone Season Allowance” in COMAR 26.11.01.01, EPA will remove the conditional nature of its approval, and the October 15, 2014 SIP revision will, at that time, receive a full approval status. Should MDE fail to meet the condition specified in this rulemaking action, the final conditional approval of the SIP revision will convert to a disapproval. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to COMAR 26.11.01.01, COMAR 26.11.14.07, COMAR 26.11.09.08, and COMAR 26.11.14.06 as previously discussed. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the regulations and requirements for the control of emissions from various processes and fuel-burning equipment from Kraft pulp mills, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 3, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11844 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 02-278; FCC 16-57] Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites comment on proposed revisions to its rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to implement a provision of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 that excepts from the TCPA's prior-express-consent requirement autodialed and prerecorded calls “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.”

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before June 6, 2016. Reply comments are due on or before June 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 02-278 by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 02-278.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristi Thornton, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 by phone at (202) 418-2467 or by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 16-57, adopted May 24, 2016, and released May 6, 2016. A copy of document FCC 16-57 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270. The full text of document FCC 16-57 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. A copy of document FCC 16-57 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 02-278 into the Proceeding block).

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 16-57 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.

    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 16-57 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that may result in modified information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on implementation of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Budget Act) amendments. Among other things, the Commission seeks comment on a number of implementation questions, such as which calls are covered by the phrase “solely to collect,” how it should restrict the number and duration of such calls, and how to implement such restrictions.

    Background A. Covered Calls

    2. At what point is a call to collect a debt a covered call? The Commission turns first to the phrase “solely to collect a debt” and seeks comment regarding the parameters of that phrase, including how the Commission should interpret “solely” and “collect.” The Commission's proposal, to ensure that debtors do not receive non-consent calls before failing to make a timely payment, is to interpret “solely to collect a debt” to mean only those calls made to obtain payment after the borrower is delinquent on a payment. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including how the Commission should interpret “delinquent” for these purposes, and any alternative approaches. The Commission also seeks comment on the alternative that covered calls may only be made after the debtor is in default, how the Commission should define “default,” and whether it should distinguish between default caused by non-payment and a default resulting from a different cause under the terms of the debt instrument.

    3. Are debt servicing calls covered? The Commission notes that debt servicing calls may provide a valuable service by offering information about options and programs designed to keep at-risk debtors from defaulting or becoming delinquent on their loans. Helping a debtor avoid delinquency or default can preserve the person's payment history and credit rating, and help maintain eligibility for future loans. The potential value of these debt servicing calls, and the probability that servicing calls will create conditions for debtors that allow debts to be more readily collected by the United States, leads the Commission to propose that servicing calls should be included in covered calls. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and, if adopted, how to ensure it does not result in the types of calls consumers would not want, such as marketing calls. The Commission seeks comment on what initiating event should enable a creditor or entity acting on a creditor's behalf to begin making covered calls to convey debt servicing information. Its proposal, above, is that covered calls begin when a borrower is delinquent on a payment; should delinquency also be the initiating event for debt servicing calls, or should some other event trigger a caller's ability to make servicing calls under the exception? What should the trigger event be?

    4. The Commission seeks comment on the definition of “servicing” that should guide its analysis in this regard. Should servicing calls include calls informing debtors how to reduce payment amounts; consolidate, modify, or restructure loans; change payment dates; or other matters indirectly related to seeking payment? The Commission proposes that permissible “servicing” calls only refer to calls made by the creditor and those entities acting on behalf of the creditor. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

    5. “Owed to or guaranteed by the United States.” The Commission seeks comment on the meaning of the phrase “a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.” What is a debt “owed to” the United States and a debt “guaranteed by” the United States? Does the phrase “owed to or guaranteed by” include debts insured by the United States? Should the Commission look to or adopt the definition of “debt” in the DCIA? Why or why not?

    6. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are any circumstances under which a party other than the federal government obtains a pecuniary interest in a debt such that the debt should no longer be considered to be “owed to . . . the United States.” Basic contract principles dictate that when an owner sells an item, it no longer belongs to the original owner, but to the purchaser. Likewise, the purchaser of a debt is owed the repayment obligation, not the prior obligee. For example, would a debt still be “owed to . . . the United States” if the right to repayment is transferred in whole or part to anyone other than the United States, or a collection agency collects the funds and then remits to the federal government a percentage of the amount collected? Are there specific types of debts that are covered or not covered by the phrase “debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” such as federal student loans, Small Business Administration loans, and federally guaranteed mortgages? Are there any other factors the Commission should consider in determining which types of debts should be included or excluded from this phrase for purposes of implementing the Budget Act amendments to the TCPA? If so, what are those factors? Consistent with the focus of the amended statutory language on debts “owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” should the Commission also require that the content of covered calls be limited to such debts, and that such calls not be permitted to include content concerning other debts or matters about which the caller may want to speak with the debtor? Similarly, can the Commission and should the Commission place any limits on a covered caller using or transferring (such as by sale) information (such as the debtor's location or phone number) obtained during covered calls in order to collect other debts or to address other matters?

    7. Who can be called? The Commission seeks comment on the person or persons to whom covered calls may be made. The Commission believes the most reasonable way to read the phrase “solely to collect a debt” is to include only calls to the person or persons obligated to pay the debt because it appears impossible that calls to non-debtors by their nature would directly result in collection from the debtor. The Commission believes this approach will ensure that a debtor's family, friends, and other acquaintances will not be subject to non-consent robocalls seeking information about the debtor. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and the related question of whether it should limit covered calls to the cellular telephone number the debtor provided to the creditor, e.g., on a loan application.

    8. The Commission seeks comment on whether calls to persons the caller does not intend to reach, that is persons whom the caller might believe to be the debtor but is not, are covered by the exception. Parties seeking debtors' current telephone numbers often use techniques such as skip tracing, which are not guaranteed to identify the debtor. The Commission proposes to exclude such calls from the exception to encourage callers to avoid robocalling unwitting individuals who have no connection to the debtor. Similarly, and consistent with its recent robocalls decision, the Commission proposes that calls to a wireless number a debtor provided to a creditor, but which has been reassigned unbeknownst to the caller, are not covered by the exception, but have the same one-call window the Commission has found to constitute a reasonable opportunity to learn of reassignment. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals and any alternatives.

    9. Who may call? The Commission next seeks comment on who may make the covered calls at issue. As amended, the relevant portion of the TCPA reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to make any call . . . using any [autodialer] or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any [wireless number] unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.” This provision is not clear as to who may make calls covered by the exception. The Commission believes the most reasonable way to interpret this language is to include calls made by creditors and those calling on their behalf, including their agents. Is there a limiting principle to determining who should be deemed to be acting on behalf of the creditor? The Commission seeks comment on its interpretation and whether it should interpret the statute to include other callers and, if so, who. Alternatively, should the Commission interpret the statute to apply more narrowly to only the creditor or to the creditor and its agents acting within the actual scope of their authority?

    10. The Commission notes that petitions pending before the Commission seek clarification regarding the meaning of “person” and whether the federal government or its agents are persons for purposes of the TCPA, among other things. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Budget Act amendments imply that the federal government is a person for TCPA purposes and whether the Commission must resolve these questions in order to complete this rulemaking. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and, if so, how the Supreme Court's recent decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez should inform the implementation of the Budget Act amendments to the TCPA.

    B. Limits on Number and Duration of Covered Calls

    11. Need for restrictions. In considering the need for restrictions on covered calls, the Commission notes the volume of consumer complaints, as set forth above. These factors, along with Congress' explicit statement that the Commission “shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by” the Budget Act, and Congress' authorization that the Commission “may restrict or limit the number and duration of calls made to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” lead the Commission to propose that it does so here. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal and on what types of number and duration restrictions it should adopt for the covered calls. Apart from its specific proposals and questions below, the Commission seeks comment generally on what other actions it should consider to reduce unwanted debt collection robocalls to consumers.

    12. If adopted, the nature of restrictions. The Commission seeks comment on how it should restrict or limit the number and duration of covered calls, including both collection calls and debt servicing calls. Consistent with the conditions the Commission has adopted when granting exemptions to permit certain free-to-end-user robocalls to be made without consent of the called party, and regardless of whether the caller leaves a prerecorded or artificial-voice message or whether the call is an autodialed call resulting in a live conversation, the Commission proposes to restrict the number of covered calls to three per month, per delinquency only after delinquency. The Commission believes three calls per month provides an adequate opportunity to convey necessary information about the debt, repayment, and other matters the caller wishes to communicate without the consent of the called party and, in any case, affords callers an opportunity to obtain the debtor's consent to make additional calls beyond any limit the Commission adopts. The Commission proposes that the limit on the number of calls should be for any initiated calls, even if unanswered by a person, because many consumers may choose not to answer calls from unfamiliar numbers. These limits would apply to autodialed, prerecorded, or artificial voice calls to wireless numbers. In the case of autodialed calls, the limits apply whether they use a prerecorded or artificial voice or instead attempt to connect the called debtor with a live agent. The Commission sees potential value, however, in debtors hearing from a live agent to discuss the debt and potential servicing options and seeks comment on whether and how it should encourage that approach. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on the maximum duration of a voice call, and whether the Commission should adopt different duration limits for prerecorded- or artificial-voice calls than for autodialed calls with a live caller. Should there be a limit on the length of text messages? What should that limit be? The Commission also seeks comment on how to count debt servicing calls for purposes of the proposed three-call limit per month or any other limit on the number of calls.

    13. Should the Commission look to other standards or precedents for guidance? For example, should the Commission restrict calls to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (local time at the called party's location), similar to the rule that now applies to telemarketing calls? Should the Commission consider any limits on the number of calls pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if it adopts such limits here? How should the Commission take account of any limits adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Are there other standards or precedents, including restrictions that might exist under either federal or state debt collection laws, the Commission should consider? Are calls covered by the Budget Act exception subject to other laws and rules that more generally govern debt collection and, if so, how should the Commission harmonize any overlapping requirements?

    14. Consumer ability to stop covered calls. The Commission has determined that an ability to stop unwanted calls is critical to the TCPA's goal of consumer protection. That right may be more important here, where consumers need not consent to the calls in advance in order for a caller to make the calls. The Commission proposes, therefore, that consumers should have a right to stop such calls at any point the consumer wishes. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal. For example, does the amended law allow the Commission to require that a caller limit covered calls to the first of (1) a specific number (perhaps within a set period of time) or (2) until the consumer says “stop”? The Commission proposes that stop-calling requests should apply to a subsequent collector of the same debt. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and how it might ensure that a request to stop such calls be honored if later transferred to other collectors. Should the Commission require that callers making covered calls record any request to stop calling and provide a record of such a request to subsequent callers along with other information about the debt?

    15. The Commission also proposes, so that consumers fully understand any right it adopts to stop calls, to require callers to inform debtors of their right to make such a request. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on when and how callers should provide such notice. For example, should the permissible ways to opt out of further calls under the TCPA—i.e., any reasonable method, including orally or in response to a text message—apply here? Should the Commission require callers making artificial- or prerecorded-voice calls to include an automated, interactive voice- and/or key press-activated opt-out mechanism for stopping future excepted calls?

    C. Other Implementation Issues

    16. Covered Calls to Residential Lines. The Commission noted that under its current rules, artificial- or prerecorded-voice calls to residential lines that are made for the purpose of collecting a debt are currently not subject to the prior express consent requirement. Although the TCPA allows for broad application of the prior express consent requirement to all non-emergency artificial- and prerecorded-voice calls to residential lines, the Commission has exercised its statutory exemption authority so as to apply the consent requirement only to calls that include or introduce an advertisement or constitute telemarketing. The Commission has also found that debt collection calls do not constitute telemarketing. Accordingly, the consent exception under the Budget Act currently does not appear to affect whether artificial- or prerecorded-voice calls to residential lines for the purpose of collecting a covered debt require prior express consent.

    17. The Commission nonetheless proposes to revise its rule concerning artificial- or prerecorded-voice calls to residential lines to reflect the exception contained in the Budget Act. The Commission does not believe, however, that it is necessary at the present time to determine the exact contours of the statutory exception for covered calls to residential lines, including, for example, determining the specific impact of the somewhat different language in the Budget Act amendments with regard to covered calls to residential lines and to wireless numbers. The Commission seeks comment on these views, and on whether it should consider any additional issues concerning covered calls. For example, should any limits on the number and duration of covered calls also apply to covered calls to residential lines, even though such calls would not have required prior express consent even before the Budget Act amendments to the TCPA?

    18. Restrictions on Calls to Cellular Telephone Service. Congress authorized the Commission to “restrict or limit the number and duration of calls made to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.” Yet, the amendment to the TCPA, authorizing calls made to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States, is broader, applying to “any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.” Considering the identical language in the prior delegation of authority in 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)(C), the Commission proposes that Congress delegated the Commission authority to limit the number and duration of all calls made pursuant to the debt collection exception in 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

    19. Congress, in granting the Commission authority to limit the number and duration of calls, used identical language to the language it used in the separate delegation of authority in 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)(C). The identical language in these two delegations of authority indicates that Congress intended the two provisions to apply to the same services.

    20. The Commission has interpreted 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)(C) to apply to all services mentioned in 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). In so doing, it has interpreted “cellular telephone service” by asking whether services are functionally equivalent from the consumer perspective rather than on technical or regulatory differences, such as which spectrum block is used to provide the service. This avoids, for example, consumers receiving wireless voice service from being treated differently depending on which spectrum block their carriers use and callers having to determine which spectrum block is used for a particular consumer's service in order to know which requirements apply.

    21. Applying the canon of statutory construction that Congress knows the law, including relevant agency interpretations, at the time it adopts a statute, the Commission presumes that Congress knew of the Commission's interpretation of this key language. Congress used the same language in the recent delegation of authority without taking any action to alter the Commission's interpretation of identical language elsewhere in the same statute. The Commission therefore proposes that the authority delegated to it in the new 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)(H) added by the Budget Act applies to all services to which amended 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) applies. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

    22. Application of Other TCPA Restrictions to Covered Calls. The Commission believes the most reasonable interpretation is that calls must be in compliance with all other legal requirements—for example, the requirement that artificial- or prerecorded-voice calls contain certain identifying information—in order for the Budget Act consent exception to apply. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well as on whether and how compliance with other legal requirements should affect the application of the Budget Act exception.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided on the first page of this document. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    24. The NPRM contains proposals regarding how to modify the Commission's rules to align them with the amended statutory language of the TCPA enacted by Congress in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Budget Act). The NPRM seeks comment generally on all entities that make autodialed or prerecorded- or artificial- voice calls to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States. The NPRM seeks comment on covered calls. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the parameters of the phrase “solely to collect a debt.” The Commission seeks comment on whether debt servicing calls are covered. The Commission seeks comment on the meaning of the phrase “owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” including the applicability of the exception to debt insured by or purchased from the United States. The Commission seeks comment on the person or persons to whom covered calls can be made and it seeks comment on who is entitled to make calls under the exception Congress created in the Budget Act.

    25. The NPRM seeks comment on limits on the number and duration of covered calls. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the need for restrictions on covered calls, including types of number and duration restrictions. The Commission seeks comment on the nature of the restrictions, if adopted, including looking to other standards or precedents for guidance. The Commission seeks comment on the consumer's ability to stop covered calls.

    26. The NPRM seeks comment on other implementation issues. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the applicably of the exception to residential lines. The Commission seeks comment on whether the authority delegated to it in the new 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)(H) added by the Budget Act applies to all services to which amended 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) applies. The Commission seeks comment on the application of other TCPA restrictions to covered calls. The Commission's underlying concern is to protect small businesses by giving them ample opportunity to comment on the proposed rules under consideration.

    27. The Commission's rules restricting the use of automated telephone dialing equipment and artificial or prerecorded voice to call wireless numbers apply to a wide range of entities, including all entities that make such calls or texts to wireless telephone numbers to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government. Thus, the Commission expects that the proposals in this proceeding could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in a wide range of categories.

    B. Legal Basis

    28. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under sections 1-4, 201(b), 227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201(b), 227, 303(r); and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584.

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    29. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    30. Collection Agencies. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in collecting payments for claims and remitting payments collected to their clients. The SBA has determined that Collection Agencies with $15 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 4,532 establishments in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 4,288 establishments operated with annual receipts of less than $10 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    31. Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating call centers that initiate or receive communications for others—via telephone, facsimile, email, or other communication modes—for purposes such as (1) promoting clients products or services, (2) taking orders for clients, (3) soliciting contributions for a client, and (4) providing information or assistance regarding a client's products or services. The SBA has determined that Telemarketing Bureaus and other Contact Centers with $15 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. U.S. Census data for 2007 indicate that 2,100 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 1,909 operated with annual receipts of less than $10 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    32. Commercial Banks and Savings Institutions. Commercial banks are establishments primarily engaged in accepting demand and other deposits and making commercial, industrial, and consumer loans. Commercial banks and branches of foreign banks are included in this industry. Savings institutions are establishments primarily engaged in accepting time deposits, making mortgage and real estate loans, and investing in high-grade securities. Savings and loan associations and savings banks are included in this industry. The SBA has determined that Commercial Banks and Savings Institutions with $500 million or less in assets qualify as small businesses. December 2013 Call Report data compiled by SNL Financial indicate that 6,877 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 5,533 qualify as small entities. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a substantial number of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    33. Credit Unions. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in accepting members' share deposits in cooperatives that are organized to offer consumer loans to their members. The SBA has determined that Credit Unions with $500 million or less in assets qualify as small businesses. The December 2013 National Credit Union Administration Call Report data indicate that 6,687 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 6,252 qualify as small entities. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a substantial number of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    34. Other Depository Credit Intermediation. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in accepting deposits and lending funds (except commercial banking, savings institutions, and credit unions). Establishments known as industrial banks or Morris Plans and primarily engaged in accepting deposits, and private banks (i.e., unincorporated banks) are included in this industry. The SBA has determined that Other Depository Credit Intermediation entities with $500 million or less in assets qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 29 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Due to the nature of this category, the Commission concludes that a substantial number of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    35. Sales Financing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in sales financing or sales financing in combination with leasing. Sales financing establishments are primarily engaged in lending money for the purpose of providing collateralized goods through a contractual installment sales agreement, either directly from or through arrangements with dealers. The SBA has determined that Sales Financing entities with $7 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 2,267 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 1,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $5 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    36. Consumer Lending. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in making unsecured cash loans to consumers. The SBA has determined that Consumer Lending entities with $7 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 3,234 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 2,969 operated with annual receipts of less than $5 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    37. Real Estate Credit. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in lending funds with real estate as collateral. The SBA has determined that Real Estate Credit entities with $7 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 5,791 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 5,036 operated with annual receipts of less than $5 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    38. International Trade Financing. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing one or more of the following: (1) working capital funds to U.S. exporters; (2) lending funds to foreign buyers of U.S. goods; and/or (3) lending funds to domestic buyers of imported goods. The SBA has determined that International Trade Financing entities with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 125 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 118 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    39. Secondary Market Financing. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in buying, pooling, and repackaging loans for sale to others on the secondary market. The SBA has determined that Secondary Market Financing entities with $7 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 105 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 74 operated with annual receipts of less than $5 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    40. All Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing nondepository credit (except credit card issuing, sales financing, consumer lending, real estate credit, international trade financing, and secondary market financing). Examples of types of lending in this industry are: short-term inventory credit, agricultural lending (except real estate and sales financing), and consumer cash lending secured by personal property. The SBA has determined that All Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation entities with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 4,590 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 4,494 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    41. Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in arranging loans by bringing borrowers and lenders together on a commission or fee basis. The SBA has determined that Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers with $7 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 17,702 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 17,393 operated with annual receipts of less than $5 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    42. Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in facilitating credit intermediation (except mortgage and loan brokerage; and financial transactions processing, reserve, and clearinghouse activities). The SBA has determined that Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation entities with $7 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. Census data for 2007 indicate that 5,494 firms in this category operated throughout that year. Of those, 5,277 operated with annual receipts of less than $5 million. The Commission concludes that a substantial majority of businesses in this category are small under the SBA standard.

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    43. Under the current rules, all artificial or prerecorded voice calls to a wireless telephone number are prohibited without prior express consent. The NPRM contains proposals regarding how to modify the Commission's rules to align them with the amended statutory language of the TCPA enacted by Congress in the Budget Act, creating an exception that allows calls to wireless telephones made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.

    44. The proposals under consideration could result in additional costs to regulated entities. If the Commission imposes restrictions on the number and duration of calls to wireless numbers as proposed for comment in the NPRM, then calling entities might incur some additional costs in tracking that information. For example, calling entities might need to modify software, develop tracking procedures, and train staff in order to keep within the restrictions on the number and duration of calls to wireless numbers. However, some calling entities may already track calls and call durations, and therefore, no additional compliance efforts would be required. Calling entities may also be relieved of tracking the consent of the called party, which could offset any new burdens.

    45. If the Commission determines that a called party may stop future calls concerning collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States as proposed for comment in the NPRM, then calling entities might incur some additional cost in maintaining do-not-call lists for wireless numbers. Such costs could include software modification, development of procedures, and training. However, some calling entities may already have procedures in place for maintaining do-not-call lists, and therefore, no additional compliance efforts will be required.

    E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    46. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    47. The Commission believes that any economic burden these proposed rules may have on carriers is outweighed by the benefits to consumers. The compliance costs identified in Section D are small. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize the economic impact of these proposals. For instance, the Commission seeks comment on the specific costs of the measures discussed in the NPRM and ways to mitigate any implementation costs. The Commission also seeks comment on the overall economic impact these proposed rules may have because it seeks to minimize all costs associated with these proposed rules. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether to consider the size of the calling entity or the type of debt being collected in determining the appropriate timeframes for implementation.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

    48. None.

    Ordering Clauses

    49. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 227, 303(r); and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, document FCC 16-57 is adopted.

    50. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 16-57, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Claims, Communications common carriers, Credit, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

    PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, and Sec. 301, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (47 U.S.C. 227) unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 64.1200 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(3)(v), and adding paragraph (a)(3)(vi) to read as follows:
    § 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call, unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.

    (3) * * *

    (v) Delivers a “health care” message made by, or on behalf of, a “covered entity” or its “business associate,” as those terms are defined in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 15 CFR 160.103;

    (vi) Is made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12025 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 32, 44, and 52 [FAR Case 2015-005; Docket No. 2015-0005, Sequence No. 1] RIN 9000-AN19 Federal Acquisition Regulation: System for Award Management Registration AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to update the instructions for System for Award Management (SAM) registration requirements and to correct an inconsistency with offeror representation and certification requirements.

    DATES:

    Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before July 19, 2016 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments in response to FAR case 2015-005 by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching “FAR Case 2015-005”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2015-005.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2015-005” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR Case 2015-005, in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-1448 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2015-005.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Currently, the language in the FAR is not consistent in terms of whether offerors need to be registered in SAM prior to submitting an offer or prior to award. Per FAR clause 52.204-7 an offeror is not “registered in the SAM database” unless an offeror has completed its online annual representations and certifications. FAR 52.204-8(b) and (d) state that if clause 52.204-7 is included in the solicitation, then the offeror verifies by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications in SAM are current and accurate. While the clauses instruct offerors to complete representations and certifications by registering in SAM prior to the submission of offers, the policy at FAR 4.1102 states that SAM registration (which includes online reps and certs) must be completed by the time of award. In order to correct this inconsistency DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend FAR 4.1102 and 4.1103 to require offeror registration in SAM prior to submission of an offer.

    In addition, the proposed rule will require contracting officers to use the name and physical address from the contractor's SAM registration for the provided Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS). We recognize that there is an ongoing FAR case (2015-022, Unique Identification of Entities Receiving Federal Awards) to remove the reference to the DUNS number, and once the final rule from that case is published; references to the DUNS number will be changed. This proposed rule also removes the term “division name” from the FAR text at FAR 4.1102, clause 52.204-13, and provision 52.212-4.

    The proposed rule also changes the referenced Web site “acquisition.gov” to “SAM.gov” to be consistent with the rest of the FAR. “Database” is also added to “SAM” so that in the FAR it is clearly understood that the reference is to the “SAM database”.

    II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the proposed rule would only change when an offeror must be registered in SAM. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    FAR subpart 4.11 was updated by FAR case 2012-033 which was published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 37676 on June 21, 2013, to reflect the retirement of the Central Contractor Registration and Online Representation and Certification Application systems and the implementation of SAM. Since the final rule was published, the Department of Defense (DoD) identified three clarifications that need to be made to the subpart and its associated provisions and clauses.

    Currently, the language in the FAR is not consistent in terms of whether offerors need to be registered in SAM prior to submitting an offer or prior to award. Per FAR clause 52.204-7 an offeror is not “registered in the SAM database” unless an offeror has completed its online annual representations and certifications. FAR 52.204-8(b) and (d) state that if clause 52.204-7 is included in the solicitation, then the offeror verifies by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications in SAM are current and accurate. While the clauses instruct offerors to complete representations and certifications by registering in SAM prior to submission of offers, the policy at FAR 4.1102 states that SAM registration (which includes online reps and certs) must be completed by the time of award.

    In order to correct this inconsistency the rule proposes that offerors be registered in SAM prior to submission of an offer. Once offerors are registered in SAM they are in the system and are only required to update SAM registration in accordance with the clause. This eliminates the need for potential offerors to complete reps and certs multiple times when responding to solicitations.

    The proposed rule would apply to small businesses that submit offers to the Federal Government. The rule contains information collection requirements. OMB has cleared this information collection requirement under OMB Control Number 9000-0159, titled: Central Contractor Registration. GSA has submitted a request to OMB to change the name of the collection to “System for Award Management Registration.” That request is pending.

    The total number of small businesses in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2013 is 111,036. This proposed rule would apply to that number of small businesses, as well as an estimated equal number that did not receive an award for FY 2013.

    There will be no burden on small businesses because this proposed rule change does not place any new requirements on small entities. The only change is when the requirement for submission of the representations and certifications must occur.

    This proposed rule requires offerors to be registered in SAM prior to submission of an offer. Once offerors are registered in SAM they are in the system and are only required to update SAM registration in accordance with the clause. This eliminates the need for potential offerors to complete representations and certifications multiple times when responding to solicitations.

    The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    There are no significant alternatives to the rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

    The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities.

    DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the proposed rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2015-005), in correspondence.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) applies. The proposed rule contains information collection requirements. OMB has cleared this information collection requirement under OMB Control Number 9000-0159; Central Contractor Registration. GSA has submitted a request to OMB to change the name of the collection to “System for Award Management Registration.” That request is pending.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 32, 44, and 52

    Government procurement.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. William Clark, Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

    Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 32, 44, and 52, as set forth below:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 32, 44, and 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

    PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS
    2.101 [Amended]
    2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph (b) by removing from the definition “Disaster Response Registry”, “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place. PART 4—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 3. Amend section 4.605 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows.
    4.605 Procedures.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Authorized generic DUNS numbers, maintained by the Integrated Award Environment (IAE) Business Operations Division program office (https://www.sam.gov), may be used to report contracts in lieu of the contractor's actual DUNS number only for—

    4. Amend section 4.1102 by— a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a); b. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d); c. Adding a new paragraph (c); and d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(1)(i).

    The revisions read as follows.

    4.1102 Policy.

    (a) Prospective contractors shall be registered in the SAM database at the time an offer or quote is submitted in order to comply with the annual representations and certifications requirements (see FAR subpart 4.12) of a contract or agreement, except for—

    (c) Contracting officers shall use the legal business name or “doing business as” name and physical address from the contractor's SAM registration for the provided DUNS number to identify the contractor in Schedule A of the contract, similar sections of non-uniform contract formats and agreements, and all corresponding forms and data exchanges. Contracting officers shall make no changes to the data from SAM.

    (d)(1)(i) If a contractor has legally changed its business name or “doing business as” name (whichever is shown on the contract), or has transferred the assets used in performing the contract, but has not completed the necessary requirements regarding novation and change-of-name agreements in subpart 42.12, the contractor shall provide the responsible contracting officer a minimum of one business day's written notification of its intention to: Change the name in the SAM database; comply with the requirements of subpart 42.12; and agree in writing to the timeline and procedures specified by the responsible contracting officer. The contractor must provide with the notification sufficient documentation to support the legally changed name.

    5. Revise section 4.1103 to read as follows:
    4.1103 Procedures.

    (a) Unless the acquisition is exempt under 4.1102, the contracting officer—

    (1) Shall verify that the prospective contractor is registered in the SAM database (see paragraph (b) of this section) at the time of offer or quote submission;

    (2) Should use the DUNS number or, if applicable, the DUNS+4 number, to verify SAM registration—

    (i) Via the Internet via https://www.sam.gov;

    (ii) As otherwise provided by agency procedures; and

    (3) Need not verify SAM registration before placing an order or call if the contract or agreement includes the provision at 52.204-7 System for Award Management, or the clause at 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items, or a similar agency clause, except when use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is contemplated as a method of payment. (See 32.1108(b)(2)).

    (b) If the contract action is being awarded pursuant to 4.1102(a)(5), or in a manner that considers other such instances of urgency, the contractor shall be registered in the SAM database within 30 days after contract award, or at least three days prior to submission of the first invoice, whichever occurs first.

    (c) Agencies shall protect against improper disclosure of Contractor or offeror SAM information.

    (d) The contracting officer shall, on contractual documents transmitted to the payment office, provide the DUNS number, or, if applicable, the DUNS+4, in accordance with agency procedures.

    4.1104 [Amended]
    6. Amend section 4.1104 by removing from the paragraph “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place.
    4.1200 [Amended]
    7. Amend section 4.1200 by removing from the introductory text “System for Award Management (SAM)” and adding “System for Award Management (SAM) database” in its place.
    4.1201 [Amended]
    8. Amend section 4.1201 by— a. Removing from paragraph (a) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place; and b. Removing from paragraph (b)(1) “shall update” and adding “shall review and update” in its place. PART 7—ACQUISITION PLANNING
    7.103 [Amended]
    9. Removing from paragraph (y) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place. PART 9—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 10. Amend section 9.404 by— a. Revising the section heading; b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); c. Removing from the introductory text of paragraph (b) “The SAM Exclusions” and adding “An exclusion record in SAM” in its place; d. Removing from paragraph (b)(1) “of all contractors debarred” and adding “of the contractor debarred” in its place; e. Revising paragraph (c); and f. Removing from paragraph (d) “https://www.acquisition.gov and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place.

    The revisions read as follows:

    9.404 Exclusions in the System for Award Management.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Operates the web-based System for Award Management (SAM) which contains Exclusions records; and

    (c) Each agency must—

    (1) Identify the individual(s) responsible for entering and updating exclusions data in SAM and assign the appropriate roles in SAM;

    (2) Remove the exclusion roles in SAM when the individual leaves the organization or changes functions;

    (3) For each Exclusion accomplished by the Agency enter the information required by paragraph (b) of this section within 3 working days after the action becomes effective;

    (4) For each Exclusion accomplished by the Agency determine whether it is legally permitted to enter the SSN, EIN, or other TIN, under agency authority to suspend or debar;

    (5) For each Exclusion accomplished by the Agency update the exclusion record in the SAM database, generally within 5 working days after modifying or rescinding an action;

    (6) In accordance with internal retention procedures, maintain records relating to each debarment, suspension, or proposed debarment taken by the agency;

    (7) Establish procedures to ensure that the agency does not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with contractors who have an active exclusion record in the SAM database, except as otherwise provided in this subpart;

    (8) Direct inquiries concerning listed contractors to the agency or other authority that took the action; and

    (9) Contact GSA for technical assistance with SAM, via the support email address or on the technical support phone line available at the SAM Web site provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

    PART 12—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS
    12.301 [Amended]
    11. Removing from paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) “registered in SAM” and adding “registered in the SAM database” in their places, respectively. PART 13—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
    13.102 [Amended]
    12. Amend section 13.102 by removing from paragraph (a) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place. PART 17—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS 13. Amend section 17.207 by revising paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows.
    17.207 Exercise of options.

    (c) * * *

    (5) The contractor does not have an active exclusion record in the System for Award Management Exclusions database (see FAR 9.405-1);

    PART 18—EMERGENCY ACQUISITIONS 14. Revise section 18.102 to read as follows.
    18.102 System for Award Management.

    Contractors are not required to be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database for contracts awarded to support unusual or compelling needs or emergency operations (see 4.1102). However, contractors are required to be registered in the SAM database in order to gain access to the Disaster Response Registry. Contracting officers shall consult the Disaster Response Registry via https://www.sam.gov to determine the availability of contractors for debris removal, distribution of supplies, reconstruction, and other disaster or emergency relief activities inside the United States and outlying areas. (See 26.205).

    PART 19—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
    19.307 [Amended]
    15. Amend section 19.307 by removing from paragraph (i)(3)(iii) “(SAM)” and adding “(SAM) database” in its place; and removing from paragraph (i)(5)(iii) “designation in SAM” and adding “designation in the SAM database” in its place.
    19.308 [Amended]
    16. Amend section 19.308 by removing from paragraph (i)(3)(iii) “(SAM)” and adding “(SAM) database” in its place; and removing from paragraph (i)(5)(iii) “designation in SAM” and adding “designation in the SAM database” in its place.
    19.1503 [Amended]
    17. Amend section 19.1503 by removing from paragraph (b)(1) “(SAM)” and adding “(SAM) database” in its place. PART 22—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS 18. Amend section 22.1025 by revising the first sentence of the text to read as follows.
    22.1025 Ineligibility of violators.

    Persons or firms found to be in violation of the Service Contract Labor Standards statute will have an active exclusion record contained in the System for Award Management Exclusions database (see 9.404). * * *

    PART 25—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 19. Amend section 25.703-3 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows.
    25.703-3 Prohibition on contracting with entities that export sensitive technology to Iran.

    (a) The head of an executive agency may not enter into or extend a contract for the procurement of goods or services with a person that exports certain sensitive technology to Iran, as determined by the President and is listed as being excluded in the System for Award Management database (see via http://www.sam.gov) (22 U.S.C. 8515).

    PART 26—OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS
    26.205 [Amended]
    20. Amended section 26.205 by removing from paragraphs (a) and (b) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in their places. PART 28—BONDS AND INSURANCE 21. Amend section 28.203-7 by revising paragraph (c); and removing from paragraph (d) “(see 9.404) unless” and adding “(see 9.404), unless” in its place.

    The revision reads as follows:

    28.203-7 Exclusion of individual sureties.

    (c) An individual surety excluded pursuant to this subsection shall be entered in the System for Award Management Exclusions (see 9.404).

    PART 32—CONTRACT FINANCING
    32.805 [Amended]
    22. Amend section 32.805 by removing from paragraph (d)(4) “Management” and adding “Management database” in its place.
    32.1108 [Amended]
    23. Amend section 32.1108 by removing from paragraph (b)(2)(i) “(SAM)” and adding “(SAM) database” in its place; and removing from paragraph (b)(2)(ii) “SAM indicates” and adding “SAM database indicates” in its place. 24. Amend section 32.1110 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    32.1110 Solicitation provision and contract clauses.

    (a) * * *

    (1) 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—System for Award Management, in solicitations and contracts that include the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management or an agency clause that requires a contractor to be registered in the SAM database and maintain registration until final payment, unless—

    PART 44—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 25. Amend section 44.202-2 by revising paragraph (a)(13) to read as follows:
    44.202-2 Considerations.

    (a) * * *

    (13) Is the proposed subcontractor listed as being excluded in the System for Award Management database (see subpart 9.4)?

    PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 26. Amend section 52.204-7 by— a. Revising the date of the provision; b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); c. Removing from paragraph (c)(2)(i) “legal business.” and adding “legal business name.” in its place; d. Revising paragraph (d); e. Removing paragraphs (e) and (f); and f. Revising the date of Alternate I and paragraph (b)(1) of Alternate I.

    The revisions read as follows.

    52.204-7 System for Award Management. System for Award System (Date)

    (b)(1) By submission of an offer, the offeror acknowledges that the offeror is registered in the SAM database and the requirement that a prospective awardee shall continue to be registered at time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting from this solicitation.

    (d) Processing time, which normally takes 48 hours, should be taken into consideration when registering. Offerors who are not registered in the SAM database should consider applying for registration immediately upon receipt of this solicitation. See https://www.sam.gov for information on registration.

    Alternate I (Date). * * *

    (b)(1) By submission of an offer, the offeror acknowledges that the offeror is registered in the SAM database and the requirement that a prospective awardee shall continue to be registered at time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting from this solicitation.

    27. Amend section 52.204-8 by— a. Revising the date of the provision, b. Removing from the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2) “Management (SAM),” and adding “Management (SAM) database” in its place; and c. Removing from paragraph (d) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place.

    The revisions read as follows:

    52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications. Annual Representations and Certifications (Date)
    28. Amend section 52.204-13 by— a. Revising the date of the clause; b. Removing from the first sentence of paragraph (b) “for the accuracy” and adding “for currency, accuracy” in its place; and removing from the last sentence “the SAM does” and adding “the SAM database does” in its place; c. Revising the first sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (c)(1)(i); d. Removing from the second sentence of paragraph (c)(2) “in the SAM” and adding “in the SAM database” in its place; and e. Removing from paragraph (d) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place.

    The revisions read as follows:

    52.204-13 System for Award Management Maintenance. System for Award Management Maintenance (Date)

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) If a Contractor has legally changed its business name or doing business as name (whichever is shown on the contract), or has transferred the assets used in performing the contract, but has not completed the necessary requirements regarding novation and change-of-name agreements in subpart 42.12, the Contractor shall provide the responsible Contracting Officer a minimum of one business day's written notification of its intention to—

    29. Amend section 52.209-7 by revising the date of the provision and removing from paragraph (d) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place.

    The revision reads as follows:

    52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility Matters. Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (Date)
    30. Amend section 52.209-9 by revising the date of the clause and removing from paragraph (a) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place.

    The revision reads as follows:

    52.209-9 Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding Responsibility Matters. Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (Date)
    31. Amend section 52.212-1 by revising the date of provision and paragraph (k) to read as follows:
    52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items. Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items (Date)

    (k) System for Award Management. Unless exempted by an addendum to this solicitation, by submission of an offer, the offeror acknowledges that the offeror is registered in the SAM database and the requirement that a prospective awardee shall continue to be registered at time of award, during performance and through final payment of any contract resulting from this solicitation. If the Offeror is not registered in the SAM database prior to award of the contract, except in instances of urgency (see 4.1102(a)(5), the Contracting Officer will proceed to award to the next otherwise successful registered Offeror. Offerors may obtain information on registration and annual confirmation requirements via the SAM database accessed through https://www.sam.gov.

    32. Amend section 52.212-3 by— a. Revising the date of the provision; b. Removing from the introductory text of the provision “http://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place; c. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and d. Removing from the introductory text of paragraph (p) “registered in SAM” and adding “registered in the SAM database” in its place.

    The revision reads as follows:

    52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items. Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items (Date)

    (b) * * *

    (2) The offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM Web site accessed through http://www.sam.gov. After reviewing the SAM database information, the offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items, have been entered or updated in the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), at the time an offer is submitted and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201), except for paragraphs ___. [Offeror to identify the applicable paragraphs at (c) through (r) of this provision that the offeror has completed for the purposes of this solicitation only, if any.

    These amended representation(s) and/or certification(s) are also incorporated in this offer and are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of this offer.

    Any changes provided by the offeror are applicable to this solicitation only, and do not result in an update to the representations and certifications posted electronically on SAM.]

    33. Amend section 52.212-4 by— a. Revising the date of the clause; b. Revising paragraphs (t)(1) and (t)(2)(i); c. Removing from paragraph (t)(4) “https://www.acquisition.gov” and adding “https://www.sam.gov” in its place; and d. Removing from paragraph (v) “System for Award Management (SAM)” and adding “SAM database” in its place.

    The revised text reads as follows:

    52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items. Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items (Date)

    (t) * * * (1) Unless exempted by an addendum to this contract, the Contractor is responsible during performance and through final payment of any contract for the currency, accuracy and completeness of the data within the SAM database, and for any liability resulting from the Government's reliance on inaccurate or incomplete data. To remain registered in the SAM database after the initial registration, the Contractor is required to review and update on an annual basis from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates, its information in the SAM database to ensure it is current, accurate and complete. Updating information in the SAM does not alter the terms and conditions of this contract and is not a substitute for a properly executed contractual document.

    (2)(i) If a Contractor has legally changed its business name or “doing business as” name (whichever is shown on the contract), or has transferred the assets used in performing the contract, but has not completed the necessary requirements regarding novation and change-of-name agreements in FAR subpart 42.12, the Contractor shall provide the responsible Contracting Officer a minimum of one business day's written notification of its intention to: change the name in the SAM database; comply with the requirements of subpart 42.12; and agree in writing to the timeline and procedures specified by the responsible Contracting Officer. The Contractor must provide with the notification sufficient documentation to support the legally changed name.

    [FR Doc. 2016-11977 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028; 4500030114] RIN 1018-AZ38 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species on Hawaii Island AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our October 17, 2012, proposed designation of critical habitat for three plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula), and Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi)) on Hawaii Island under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties further opportunity to comment on areas that we are considering for exclusion from critical habitat designation in the final rule. Comments previously submitted on the proposed rule do not need to be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

    DATES:

    Written Comments: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before June 6, 2016. Please note comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. If you are submitting your comments by hard copy, please mail them by June 6, 2016, to ensure that we receive them in time to give them full consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document Availability: You may obtain copies of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, this document, and the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028, from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office's Web site (http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/), or by contacting the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Written Comments: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028, which is the docket number for this rulemaking, and follow the directions for submitting a comment.

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will post all comments we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at 808-792-9581. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi), and Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula), that was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928). In that proposed rule, we proposed to list 15 species on the Hawaiian island of Hawaii as endangered species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), to designate critical habitat for one of these species, and to designate critical habitat for two plant species that were listed as endangered species in 1986 and 1994. We finalized the listing determinations of those 15 species on October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64638). Critical habitat has not yet been finalized. We previously reopened the comment period on the proposed critical habitat twice: once for 30 days, on April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243), and again for 60 days on July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39698).

    In particular we are seeking public comment on the areas that we are considering for exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi), and Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula). Although we previously indicated that we were considering the possible exclusion of non-Federal lands, especially areas in private ownership, and asked for comment on the broad public benefits of encouraging collaborative conservation efforts with local and private partners, we are now offering an additional opportunity for public comment on this issue. Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, conservation agreements with the Service were signed by several of the landowners previously identified for possible exclusion. Furthermore, the Service has identified some additional areas considered for exclusion based on partnerships with landowners who signed conservation agreements with the Service subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule. Therefore, we are offering another opportunity for public comment on the broad public benefits of encouraging collaborative conservation efforts with local and private partners. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties.

    We are particularly interested in comments concerning whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area as critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)), after considering the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation. We are considering the possible exclusion of non-Federal lands, especially areas in private ownership, and whether the benefits of exclusion may outweigh the benefits of inclusion of those areas. We, therefore, request specific information on:

    • The benefits of including any specific areas in the final designation and supporting rationale.

    • The benefits of excluding any specific areas from the final designation and supporting rationale.

    • Whether any specific exclusions may result in the extinction of the species and why.

    For non-Federal lands in particular, we are interested in information regarding the potential benefits of including such lands in critical habitat versus the benefits of excluding such lands from critical habitat. In weighing the potential benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of non-Federal lands, the Service may consider whether existing partnership agreements provide for the management of the species. This consideration may include, for example, the status of conservation efforts, the effectiveness of any conservation agreements to conserve the species, and the likelihood of the conservation agreement's future implementation. In addition, we may consider the formation or fostering of partnerships with non-Federal entities that result in positive conservation outcomes for the species, as evidenced by the development of conservation agreements, as a potential benefit of exclusion. We request comment on the broad public benefits of encouraging collaborative efforts and encouraging local and private conservation efforts.

    Our final determination concerning the designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense, and Isodendrion pyrifolium will take into consideration all written comments and information we receive during all comment periods; from peer reviewers; and during the public information meeting, as well as comments and public testimony we received during the public hearing, that we held in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, on May 15, 2013 (see 78 FR 25243; April 30, 2013). The comments will be included in the public record for this rulemaking, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. On the basis of peer reviewer and public comments, as well as any new information we may receive during the development of our final determination concerning critical habitat, we may find (1) that areas within the proposed critical habitat designation do not meet the definition of critical habitat, (2) that some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or (3) that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (October 17, 2012; 77 FR 63928) during one of the three previous open comment periods from October 17, 2012, through December 17, 2012 (77 FR 63928), April 30, 2013, through May 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243), and July 2, 2013, through September 3, 2013 (78 FR 39698), or at the public information meeting or hearing on May 15, 2013 (78 FR 25243), please do not resubmit them. We will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determinations.

    You may submit your comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. If you submit your comment via U.S. mail, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such as your street address, phone number, or email address from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2013-0028, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Background Previous Federal Actions

    On October 17, 2012, we published a proposed rule (77 FR 63928) to list 15 species on the Hawaiian island of Hawaii as endangered species under the Act, to designate critical habitat for one of these species, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and to designate critical habitat for two previously listed plant species, Mezoneuron kavaiense (51 FR 24672, July 8, 1986) and Isodendrion pyrifolium (59 FR 10305, March 3, 1994). We proposed to designate 18,766 acres (ac) (7,597 hectares (ha)) on the island of Hawaii. Approximately 55 percent of the area proposed as critical habitat is already designated as critical habitat for 41plants and the Blackburn's sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni), for which critical habitat was designated on July 2, 2003 (68 FR 39624), and June 10, 2003 (68 FR 34710), respectively.

    In our October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we announced a 60-day comment period, which began on October 17, 2012, and ended on December 17, 2012. On April 30, 2013, we announced the availability of the draft economic analysis on the proposed designation of critical habitat, and reopened the comment period on our proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and amended required determinations for another 30 days, ending May 30, 2013 (78 FR 25243). On April 30, 2013, we also announced a public information meeting in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, which we held on May 15, 2013, followed by a public hearing on that same day (78 FR 25243). On July 2, 2013, we announced the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat and the draft economic analysis for an additional 60 days, through September 3, 2013 (78 FR 39698).

    Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency unless it is exempted pursuant to the provisions of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(e)-(n) and (p)). Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

    Consistent with the best scientific data available, the standards of the Act, and our regulations, we initially identified and proposed a total of 18,766 ac (7,597 ha) in 7 units for three plant species located on the island of Hawaii, that meet the definition of critical habitat. In addition, the Act provides the Secretary with the discretion to exclude certain areas from the final designation after taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

    Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.

    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the three species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the three species due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.

    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise her discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.

    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the protection from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat. Additionally, continued implementation of a management plan that provides equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would reduce the benefits of including that specific area in the critical habitat designation.

    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation and the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships.

    When we evaluate a management plan during our consideration of the benefits of exclusion, we assess a variety of factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized, how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or biological features, whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will be implemented into the future, whether the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective, and whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in response to new information.

    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.

    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as well as any additional public comments received, we will evaluate whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Units 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 are appropriate for exclusion from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may exercise her discretion to exclude the lands from the final designation.

    In our October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we identified areas in four of the proposed critical habitat units for potential exclusion from the final critical habitat designation for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Table 1 provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of these lands that meet the definition of critical habitat but were proposed for consideration for possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule.

    Table 1—Areas Considered for Exclusion in the 2012 Proposed Rule (77 FR 63928), by Critical Habitat Unit Unit Specific area Areas meeting the definition of critical
  • habitat, in
  • acres
  • (hectares)
  • Areas
  • considered
  • for possible
  • exclusion, in
  • acres
  • (hectares)
  • Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 31 Kamehameha Schools 2,834 (1,147) 2,834 (1,147) Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 33 Palamanui Global Holdings LLC 502 (203) 502 (203) Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 34 Kaloko Properties Corp. 48 (19) 48 (19) SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC 558 (226) 558 (226) TSA Corporation 26 (10) 26 (10) Lanihau Properties 47 (19) 47 (19) Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 355 (144) 87 (35)

    We are now considering whether to exclude additional areas. Table 2 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of the additional lands that meet the definition of critical habitat but are now under our consideration for possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule. In the paragraphs that follow below, we provide a detailed analysis of our consideration of these additional lands for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

    Table 2—Additional Areas Considered for Exclusion, by Critical Habitat Unit Unit Specific area Areas meeting the definition of critical
  • habitat, in
  • acres
  • (hectares)
  • Areas
  • considered for
  • possible
  • exclusion, in
  • acres
  • (hectares)
  • Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 32 Waikoloa Village Association 1,758 (711) 1,758 (711) Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 33 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 91 (30) 91 (30) Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35 County of Hawaii (State) 165 (67) 165 (67) Hawaii Housing and Finance Development Corporation (State) 30 (12) 30 (12) Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 401 (165) 401 (165) Forest City Kona 265 (107) 265 (107) Queen Liliuokalani Trust 302 (122) 302 (122)
    Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.

    We sometimes exclude specific areas from critical habitat designations based in part on the existence of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant partnerships. A conservation plan or agreement describes actions that are designed to provide for the conservation needs of a species and its habitat, and may include actions to reduce or mitigate negative effects on the species caused by activities on or adjacent to the area covered by the plan. Conservation plans or agreements can be developed by private entities with no Service involvement, or in partnership with the Service.

    We evaluate a variety of factors to determine how the benefits of any exclusion and the benefits of inclusion are affected by the existence of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant partnerships when we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. A non-exhaustive list of factors that we will consider for non-permitted plans or agreements is shown below. These factors are not required elements of plans or agreements, and all items may not apply to every plan or agreement.

    (i) The degree to which the plan or agreement provides for the conservation of the species or the essential physical or biological features (if present) for the species;

    (ii) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions contained in a management plan or agreement will be implemented;

    (iii) The demonstrated implementation and success of the chosen conservation measures;

    (iv) The degree to which the record of the plan supports a conclusion that a critical habitat designation would impair the realization of benefits expected from the plan, agreement, or partnership;

    (v) The extent of public participation in the development of the conservation plan;

    (vi) The degree to which there has been agency review and required determinations (e.g., State regulatory requirements), as necessary and appropriate;

    (vii) Whether National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) compliance was required; and

    (viii) Whether the plan or agreement contains a monitoring program and adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be modified in the future in response to new information.

    In the proposed rule (October 17, 2012; 77 FR 63928), we identified several specific areas under consideration for exclusion from critical habitat based on the landowner's conservation partnerships; these exclusions totaled approximately 4,099 ac (1,659 ha) of State land and private lands. The areas identified for potential exclusion, as detailed in our proposed rule, included lands owned or managed by Kamehameha Schools; Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC; Kaloko Properties Corp.; Lanihau Properties; SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai, LLC; TSA Corporation; and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. We asked for public comment on the potential exclusions, and for information regarding the potential benefits of including private lands in critical habitat versus the benefits of excluding such lands from critical habitat. After publication of the proposed rule, three of these landowners (Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC; Lanihau Properties; and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands) signed memoranda of understanding with the Service covering actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense, and Isodendrion pyrifolium. Furthermore, in the proposed rule we noted that exclusions in the final rule would not necessarily be limited to those we initially identified in the proposed rule. Subsequent to publication of the proposed rule, we identified additional private or non-Federal lands that we are considering for exclusion from critical habitat, based on conservation partnerships with the Service. These include lands owned or managed by Waikoloa Village Association, County of Hawaii, Hawaii Housing and Finance Development Corporation, Forest City Kona, and Queen Liliuokalani Trust. Therefore, at this time we request public comment on the following: the benefits of including any specific areas in the final designation and supporting rationale, benefits of excluding any specific areas from the final designation and supporting rationale, and whether any specific exclusions may result in the extinction of the species and why. The three of the areas originally proposed for exclusion, as well as the additional areas being considered for exclusion, are briefly described below.

    Certain Areas Considered for Exclusion in the 2012 Proposed Rule Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC

    In the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we stated that we were considering the exclusion of 502 ac (203 ha) owned or managed by Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC (Palamanui). These lands fall within a portion of the 1,583 ac (640 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 33; the proposed unit is occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense, and unoccupied but essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion pyrifolium (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Palamanui has demonstrated their willingness to work as a conservation partner by undertaking site management that provides important conservation benefits to the native Hawaiian species that depend upon the lowland dry ecosystem habitat. Under an integrated natural cultural resource management plan (INCRMP 2005) addressing preservation, mitigation, management, and stewardship measures for the natural and cultural resources at the Palamanui development, Palamanui successfully implemented the following conservation actions on their lands: (1) Fencing to protect a 55-ac (22-ha) Lowland Dry Forest Preserve (Preserve) and other endangered plant locations outside the Preserve; (2) maintenance of firebreaks to control the threat of fire at the Preserve and other endangered plant locations outside the Preserve; (3) establishment of the Palamanui Dry Forest Working Group and research partnership; and (4) partnerships with other landowners and practitioners to benefit the conservation and recovery of dry forest species and their habitat.

    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, Palamanui participated in a series of collaborative meetings with the Service, County of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in proposed Critical Habitat Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species protection and recovery and development on a regional scale. In 2015, Palamanui signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and the lowland dry ecosystem upon which they depend (Memorandum of Understanding Between Palamanui Global Holdings LLC and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). In the MOU, Palamanui agreed to increase the area of fenced and managed lowland dry forest protected within the Preserve by 19 ac (7.7 ha), for a total of approximately 75 ac (30 ha). Palamanui also agreed to ensure funding for conservation actions within the Preserve for the next 20 years at a minimum of $50,000 per year. Palamanui will also contribute conservation actions valued at an additional $200,000 to benefit the recovery of the three plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem, and agreed to work cooperatively with the Service or other conservation partners to conduct activities expected to benefit Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat. Implementation has already been initiated on the following actions agreed to in the MOU: (1) Firebreak maintenance around the Preserve; (2) fence maintenance to exclude ungulates from the Preserve and removal of ungulates that had been allowed to enter the Preserve; (3) regular weed control in the Preserve; and (4) propagation, outplanting, and maintenance of listed species in the Preserve.

    Lanihau Properties

    In the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we considered the exclusion of 47 ac (19 ha) of land owned/managed by Lanihau Properties. These lands fall within a portion of the 961 ac (389 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii— Lowland Dry—Unit 34; the proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and unoccupied but essential to the conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Lanihau Properties has demonstrated their willingness to work as a conservation partner by undertaking site management that provides important conservation benefits to the native Hawaiian species that depend upon the lowland dry ecosystem habitat. In 2010, Lanihau Properties agreed to set aside a 4.6-ac (1.9-ha) area as a dryland forest reserve and implement conservation measures as a condition for issuance of a county grading permit associated with the construction of the Ane Keohokalole Highway (USFWS 2010, in litt.).

    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, Lanihau Properties participated in a series of collaborative meetings along with the Service, County of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in proposed Critical Habitat Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species protection and recovery and development on a regional scale. In 2014, Lanihau Properties signed an MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and endangered plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding between Lanihau Properties and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, entire). In the agreement, Lanihau Properties agreed to set aside and not undertake development in an approximately 16-ac (6-ha) area, adding 11.4 ac (4.6 ha) to the previous 4.6-ac (1.9-ha) set aside, and work cooperatively with the Service or other conservation partners to conduct activities expected to benefit the conservation of the three species and the lowland dry ecosystem for the next 20 years.

    Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

    In the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we announced we were considering the exclusion of 87 ac (35 ha) of lands owned by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) out of the total 446 ac (181 ha) of DHHL land proposed as critical habitat. Based on a new MOU evidencing a more robust partnership with the Service, summarized below, and updated land ownership records that added approximately 46.5 ac (18.4 ha) to DHHL's land considered for exclusion, we are now considering the exclusion of 492 ac (199 ha) of lands owned by DHHL. These lands fall within portions of two proposed units. The DHHL owns 91 ac (30 ha) of the 1,583 ac (640 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 33; this proposed unit is occupied by Mezoneuron kavaiense, and unoccupied by but essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion pyrifolium. The DHHL also owns 401 ac (165 ha) of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35; this proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012).

    The DHHL has worked in partnership with the Service to protect and restore endangered and threatened species and their habitats during the last 15 years on Hawaii Island. In December 2010, the Hawaiian Homes Commission adopted the “Aina Mauna Legacy Program,” a 100-year plan to reforest approximately 87 percent of a 56,200-ac (22,743-ha) contiguous parcel managed by DHHL on the eastern slope of Mauna Kea, Hawaii Island. Implementation of the Aina Mauna Legacy Program calls for removal of all feral ungulates from the Aina Mauna landscape and several restoration projects have been implemented to benefit endangered and threatened species and their habitats (DHHL 2009, pp. 19-21). Each of these projects received funding from the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program for 10-year landowner agreements to maintain the conservation actions, and includes multiple partners such as the State, National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance.

    From 1996 to 2006, the DHHL acquired a total of approximately 685 ac (277 ha) at Laiopua, Kealakehe, and Keahuolu from the Hawaii Housing Finance Development Corporation (HHFDC, previously HCDCH) (Masagatani 2012, in litt.) and subsequently committed two parcels equaling approximately 40 ac (16 ha) for the development, management, and maintenance as preserves with the sole purpose of protecting of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mezoneuron kavaiense, and other endangered species. The three parcels included the two principal preserves of the 1999 plan and the area identified for protection of archaeological resources, for a total of 73 ac (29 ha) protected. Since 2010, the DHHL has committed approximately $1,198,052 for the development and management of the preserve areas (Masagatani 2012, in litt.). Conservation actions in the preserve areas include: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates and prevent human trespass; (2) control and removal of nonnative plants; (3) control and prevention of the threat of fire; (4) propagation, outplanting, and care of common native and endangered plant species; and (5) promoting community volunteer and education programs that support native plant conservation.

    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, the DHHL participated in a series of collaborative meetings with the Service, County of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species protection and recovery and development on a regional scale. In 2015, the DHHL signed an MOU with the Service for a conservation agreement expected to benefit the recovery of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). Under the agreement, the DHHL will continue to protect the 73 ac (29 ha) of existing preserves and agrees to set aside and not develop an additional 24 ac (10 ha) for a total protected area of 97 ac (39 ha) to benefit the recovery of the three plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem. The DHHL agreed in the MOU to funding conservation actions valued at $3.229 million on 44 ac (18 ha) of the existing preserves for 40 years and within the additional 24 ac (10 ha) for 20 years. The remaining 29 ac (ha) of existing preserves will not be actively managed but will remain protected from development. Conservation actions on the 68 managed acres include: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates; (2) control and the prevention of the threat of fire; (3) control and removal of nonnative plant species; (4) propagation, outplanting, and care of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and other rare and endangered plant species; and (5) other management actions expected to benefit the recovery of listed plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem. Implementation has already been initiated on the following actions agreed to in the MOU: (1) Fence and firebreak maintenance around the preserves; (2) regular weed control of the managed areas in the preserves; and (3) initiated improvements to the fences and gates in the existing Aupaka Preserve, including raising the height of the fence to exclude ungulates and removing barbed wire, which is a threat to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus).

    Additional Areas Currently Under Consideration for Exclusion Waikoloa Village Association

    We are considering excluding 1,758 ac (711 ha) of lands from critical habitat that are owned or managed by the Waikoloa Village Association (WVA). These lands include the majority of the 1,779 ac (720) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 32; the proposed unit is occupied by one of the three plant species, Mezoneuron kavaiense, and is unoccupied but essential to the conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Isodendrion pyrifolium (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Since 2012, the WVA has voluntarily facilitated and supported the conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense and other federally listed species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem, on their privately owned lands. In 2012, the WVA Board of Directors granted permission to protect and restore 275 ac (111 ha) of dry forest habitat south of Waikoloa Village for a period of 75 years by way of a license agreement with the nonprofit Waikoloa Dry Forest Initiative, Inc. The project's management program includes: (1) Construction and maintenance of a 275-ac (111-ha) fence to exclude ungulates; (2) removal of ungulates from the fenced exclosure; (3) control of nonnative plant species to reduce competition and the threat of fire; (4) integrated pest management to reduce impacts on native plant species; (5) provision of infrastructure for propagation and maintenance of outplantings; (6) establishment of common native and endangered plant species; and (7) education and community outreach activities. Furthermore, in 2014, the WVA signed an MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to Mezoneuron kavaiense, Isodendrion pyrifolium and Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and the lowland dry ecosystem upon which they depend (Memorandum of Understanding between Waikoloa Village Association and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, entire). The WVA agreed not to undertake development in 60 ac (24 ha) adjacent to the Waikoloa Dry Forest Recovery Project's 275-ac (111-ha) exclosure and to work cooperatively with the Service or other conservation partners to conduct activities expected to benefit Mezoneuron kavaiense, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and their habitat.

    County of Hawaii

    We are considering exclusion of 165 ac (67 ha) of lands owned by the State of Hawaii that are under management of the County of Hawaii (County). These lands fall within a portion of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35; the proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Since 2010, the County of Hawaii (County) has been involved in voluntary cooperative partnerships and conservation agreements with the Service for the conservation of rare and endangered species and their habitats. In 2010, the County helped facilitate protection of over 150 ac (61 ha) of lowland dry ecosystem habitat known to contain numerous listed plant species (USFWS 2010, in litt.).

    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, the County participated in a series of collaborative meetings with the Service, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species protection and recovery and development on a regional scale. In 2015, the County signed an MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding Between County of Hawaii and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2015, entire). The County agreed to set aside and not develop approximately 30 ac (12 ha) of lands under its management, and also agreed to conduct conservation actions valued at $1.534 million on a total of 50.1 ac (20.3 ha) to benefit the recovery of the three plant species, as well as other rare and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem, over the next 20 years. The 50.1 ac (20.3 ha) where conservation actions will occur includes 30 ac (12 ha) owned by the County, 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) owned by the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, and 15.9 ac (6.4) owned by Lanihau Properties. Of the total 30 ac (12 ha) of County land protected from development, 22 ac (8.9 ha) are adjacent to a 4.2-ac (1.7-ha) set-aside by the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation and another 21.7-ac (8.8-ha) set-aside by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands; these three areas together create approximately 47.9 contiguous acres (19.4 ha) protected for the conservation of the three species and the lowland dry ecosystem. The remaining 8-ac (3.2-ha) set-aside is located within the proposed Kealakehe Regional Park and adjacent to an existing 3.4-ac (1.4-ha) preserve managed by County but owned by the Hawaiian Department of Land and Natural Resources. Because the conservation actions will occur in some areas jointly managed by the County and other agencies or at offsite locations, the County will work cooperatively and in partnership with these landowners. These conservation actions will include: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates; (2) control and prevention of the threat of fire; (3) control of nonnative plant species; and (4) other management actions expected to benefit the recovery of listed plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem.

    Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation

    We are considering exclusion of 30 ac (12 ha) of lands owned by the State of Hawaii that are under management of the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC). These lands fall within a portion of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35; the proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). The HHFDC has demonstrated their willingness to work as a conservation partner by undertaking site management that provides important conservation benefits to the native Hawaiian species that depend upon the lowland dry ecosystem habitat.

    Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, HHFDC participated in a series of collaborative meetings with the Service, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species protection and recovery and development on a regional scale. In 2016, HHFDC signed an MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as to other rare and federally listed species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding Between Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, entire). The HHFDC agreed to set aside and not develop approximately 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) of lands under its management to provide protection and management for one of the seven remaining mature individuals of Mezoneuron kavaiense in proposed Unit 35, as well as other rare and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem, over the next 20 years. The 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) protected from development by the HHFDC are adjacent to the 22-ac (8.9-ha) set-aside by the County and another 21.7-ac (8.8-ha) set-aside by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands; these three areas together create approximately 47.9 contiguous acres (19.4 ha) protected for the conservation of the three species and the lowland dry ecosystem. Because the conservation actions will occur in some areas jointly managed by the HHFDC and other agencies, the HHFDC will work cooperatively and in partnership with these landowners and the Service. These conservation actions will include: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates; (2) control and prevention of the threat of fire; (3) control of nonnative plant species; and (4) other management actions expected to benefit the recovery of listed plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem.

    Forest City Kona

    We are considering the exclusion of 265 ac (107 ha) of lands that are owned by Forest City Kona, LLC. These lands fall within a portion of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35; the proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012). Forest City Kona has demonstrated their willingness to work as a conservation partner by undertaking site management that provides important conservation benefits to the native Hawaiian species that depend upon the lowland dry ecosystem habitat.

    Subsequent to the publication of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule, Forest City Kona participated in a series of collaborative meetings with the Service, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and other stakeholders in Units 31, 33, 34, and 35, to address species protection and recovery and development on a regional scale. In 2016, Forest City Kona signed an MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense and their habitat, as well as other rare and federally listed species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding between Forest City Kona and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, entire). Forest City Kona agreed to set aside and not undertake development in two areas, totaling 20 ac (8 ha), and to work cooperatively with the Service on approved conservation programs to conduct activities to benefit the conservation of the three species and the lowland dry ecosystem in these areas for the next 20 years. The MOU's conservation actions include: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates; (2) control of nonnative plant species; (3) propagation, outplanting, and care of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and common native plant species; (4) control and prevention of the threat of fire; and (5) other management actions expected to benefit the recovery of listed plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem. The MOU also includes a commitment from Forest City Kona to provide $500,000 towards the implementation of on-site or off-site conservation actions within the North Kona region that will benefit the recovery of the three plant species and the lowland dry ecosystem.

    Queen Liliuokalani Trust

    In the October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we stated that we were not considering for exclusion lands owned by Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) for the following reasons: (1) The conservation plans in place at the time only addressed actions related to Isodendrion pyrifolium, but did not address conservation of the other two plants with proposed critical habitat on the land, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense; and (2) since 2005, we were unaware of efforts to outplant propagated individuals of Isodendrion pyrifolium or any current plans to conserve listed species or their habitats in the lowland dry ecosystem on the lands at Keahuolu owned by QLT. In 2014, QLT signed an MOU with the Service addressing both of these previous concerns. We are now considering exclusion of 302 ac (122 ha) of lands that are owned or managed by QLT. These lands fall within a portion of the 1,192 ac (485 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35; the proposed unit is occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense (77 FR 63928; October 17, 2012).

    Since 2004, QLT has supported the conservation of federally listed species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem, on their privately owned lands. In 2004, the QLT entered into an agreement with the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to conduct research on the propagation of two endangered plants, Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata, in order to secure genetic material in ex situ storage and provide individuals of each species for reintroduction or restoration projects. In February 2014, the QLT signed an MOU with the Service wherein they agreed to implement important conservation actions beneficial to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as other rare and listed plant species and their habitat in the lowland dry ecosystem (Memorandum of Understanding between Queen Liliuokalani Trust and U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2014, entire). The management actions included in the MOU are: (1) Fencing to exclude ungulates; (2) control and prevention of the threat of fire; (3) propagation and outplanting of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense, as well as six other rare or listed plant species; (4) weed control; (5) watering and maintenance of outplanted individuals; (6) monitoring and reporting; (7) analysis of success criteria; and (8) adaptive management. The QLT also agreed to set aside and not undertake development in a separate 28-ac (11-ha) area and work cooperatively with the Service or other conservation partners to conduct activities to benefit the conservation of the three species and the lowland dry ecosystem. This area will be available for the conservation and propagation efforts for the three species and other listed and rare species of the lowland dry ecosystem.

    In addition to the agreements and commitments detailed above, QLT developed a culturally based service learning program that has involved over 1,300 beneficiaries, school groups, and other community members in removing invasive species. QLT continues to spend over $12,000 per year to control invasive species, such as fountain grass (Cenchrus setaceum) and haole koa (Leucaena leucocephala). Other significant expenditures include funds spent on security in response to trespassing and vandalism on its Kona lands (QLT 2013).

    Summary of Areas Considered for Exclusion

    We are considering exclusion of these non-Federal lands because we believe the exclusion may result in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of important conservation partnerships that will contribute to the long-term conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense and Isodendrion pyrifolium. The development and implementation of management plans, and ability to access private lands necessary for surveys or monitoring designed to promote the conservation of these federally listed plant species and their habitat, as well as provide for other native species of concern, would be important outcomes of these conservation partnerships.

    The final designation may not exclude these areas, or be limited to these exclusions, but may also consider other exclusions as a result of continuing analysis of relevant considerations (scientific, economic, and other relevant factors, as required by the Act) and the public comment process. In particular, we solicit comments from the public on whether to make the specific exclusions we are considering, and whether there are other areas that are appropriate for exclusion.

    The final decision on whether to exclude any area will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment periods and information about the economic impact of the designation.

    Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Karen Hyun, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11941 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    81 98 Friday, May 20, 2016 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of June 2, 2016 Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid Meeting AGENCY:

    United States Agency for International Development.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA).

    Date: Thursday, June 2, 2016.

    Time: 2:00-4:00 p.m.

    Location: Polaris Room, The Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    Purpose

    The Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA) brings together USAID and private voluntary organization officials, representatives from universities, international nongovernment organizations, U.S. businesses, and government, multilateral, and private organizations to foster understanding, communication, and cooperation in the area of foreign aid.

    Agenda

    USAID Administrator Gayle Smith will make opening remarks, followed by panel discussions among ACVFA members and USAID leadership on the applying the “New Model of Development” to Democracy, Governance and Human Rights efforts. Panel presentations will be followed by breakout groups for public consultation and input. The full meeting agenda will be forthcoming on the ACVFA Web site at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee.

    Stakeholders

    The meeting is free and open to the public. Registration information will be forthcoming on the ACVFA Web site at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jayne Thomisee, [email protected]

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Jayne Thomisee, Executive Director & Policy Advisor, U.S. Agency for International Development.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11946 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Final Record of Decision for Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of plan amendment approval.

    SUMMARY:

    Forest Supervisor William A. Dunkelberger signed the final Record of Decision (ROD) for the Greater Sage-grouse Bi-state Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment (Amendment) on May 16, 2016. The final ROD documents the Forest Supervisor's decision and rationale for approving the plan amendment.

    DATES:

    The effective date of the plan amendment is 30 calendar days after publication of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, NV 89431.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To view the final ROD, plan amendment, FEIS, and other related documents, please visit the Humboldt-Toiyabe Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=40683.

    Further information about the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest plan amendment process can be obtained from James Winfrey during normal office hours (weekdays 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor's Office.

    Phone/voicemail: 775-355-5308. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TTD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The plan amendment describes desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines, to conserve, enhance, and/or restore sagebrush and associated habitats to provide for the longterm viability of the bi-state sage grouse. The amendment will guide project and activity decision making and resource management activities across bi-state sage grouse habitat on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. William A. Dunkelberger, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11933 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS), invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by July 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164-S, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492, FAX: (202) 720-8435. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension of an existing collection. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164-S, Washington, DC 20250-1522. FAX: (202) 720-8435.

    Title: 7 CFR part 1783, Revolving Fund Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0138.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) supports the sound development of rural communities and the growth of our economy without endangering the environment. R provides financial and technical assistance to help communities bring safe drinking water and sanitary, environmentally sound waste disposal facilities to rural Americans in greatest need. The Revolving Fund Program helps qualified non-profits create a revolving loan fund that can provide financing for the extension and improvement of water and waste disposal systems in rural areas. Entities eligible for the revolving loan fund will be the same entities eligible to obtain a loan, loan guarantee, or grant from RUS Water and Waste Disposal and Wastewater loan and grant programs. As grant recipients, the non-profit organizations establish a revolving loan fund to provide loans to finance predevelopment costs of water or wastewater projects, or short-term small capital projects not part of the regular operation and maintenance of current water and wastewater systems. The collection of information consists of the materials to file a grant application with the agency, including forms, certifications and required documentation.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.23 hour per response.

    Respondents: Non-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 12.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 374 Hours.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Management Analyst, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205-3660; FAX: (202) 720-8435.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 9, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11857 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-888] Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 6, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court or the CIT) issued final judgment in Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12-00069, sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of the second redetermination pursuant to remand.1 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Timken Co., v United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of floor-standing, metal top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China covering the period August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010, and is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde).2

    1See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Floor Standing Metal Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12-00069, Slip Op. 16-01 (CIT January 8, 2016), dated March 29, 2016 (Second Redetermination), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.htm.

    2See Floor-Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 14499 (March 12, 2012), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results).

    DATES:

    Effective April 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 12, 2012, the Department published its Final Results. 3 On March 22, 2012, Foshan Shunde, an exporter of the subject merchandise, timely filed a complaint with the Court to challenge certain aspects of the Final Results. The litigation history of this procedure is outlined below.

    3Id.

    On February 22, 2013, the Court remanded the matter.4 The case was stayed pending the Court's final disposition on brokerage and handling in Since Hardware v. United States, Court No. 11-00106. The Court also stayed ruling on zeroing, pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit case, Union Steel v. United States. After the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Union Steel, 5 on August 22, 2013, the Court continued the stay pending its ruling of similar issues in Since Hardware v. United States, Court No. 11-00106. On December 30, 2014, the Court issued its decision in Since Hardware v. United States, 6 thereby lifting the stay in this case. Accordingly, on April 9, 2015, the Department issued its First Redetermination, in which it: (1) Determined to use the Indonesian “basket” category 7217.10 to value steel wire, (2) determined to use the brokerage and handling (B&H) calculation outlined in the Final Results, and (3) continued to apply the zeroing methodology utilized in the Final Results. 7

    4See Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd. v. United States, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (February 22, 2013) (Foshan Shunde I).

    5See Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

    6See Since Hardware v. United States, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1365 (CIT 2014).

    7See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated April 9, 2015 (First Redetermination).

    Upon consideration of the First Redetermination, on January 8, 2016, the Court sustained: (1) The use of World Bank data to derive brokerage and handling expenses, and (2) the application of zeroing.8 The Court, however, remanded the case to the Department to reconsider its adjustment of brokerage and handling based upon container size. Additionally, the Court directed the Department to use Indonesian HTS value 7217.10.00 to value Foshan Shunde's steel wire input.9

    8See Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12-00069, Slip Op. 16-01 (January 8, 2016) (Foshan Shunde II).

    9Id.

    On March 29, 2016, we issued the Second Redetermination, where we used the Indonesian HTS value 7217.10.00, and did not adjust the ports and terminal handling fee and document preparation fee based upon container size.10

    10See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated March 29, 2016 (Second Redetermination).

    On April 6, 2016, the Court sustained the Second Redetermination, and entered final judgment.11

    11See Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd., v. United States, Court No. 12-0006, Slip Op. 16-34 (April 6, 2016).

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the Federal Circuit has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's April 6, 2016, judgment sustaining the Second Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

    Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends the Final Results with respect to the dumping margin of Foshan Shunde. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for Foshan Shunde during the period August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010, is as follows:

    Exporter Weighted
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd 33.43

    For Foshan Shunde, the cash deposit rate will remain the rate established in the 2010-2011 Final Results, a subsequent review, which is 157.68 percent.12

    12See Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 77 FR 55806 (September 11, 2012) (2010-2011 Final Results).

    In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by Foshan Shunde using the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department in the Second Redetermination.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12003 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 14-3A004] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION:

    Notice of application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review by DFA of California (“DFA”), Application No. 14-3A004.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Commerce, through the International Trade Administration, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (OTEA), has received an application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”) from DFA. This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and seeks public comments on whether the amended Certificate should be issued.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2016). Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its application. Under 15 CFR 325.6(a), interested parties may, within twenty days after the date of this notice, submit written comments to the Secretary through OTEA on the application.

    Request for Public Comments: Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.

    An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230.

    Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the amended Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 14-3A004.”

    Summary of the Application

    Applicant: DFA of California.

    Contact: c/o Gilbert Associates, Inc., 2880 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100, Sacramento, California 95833.

    Application No.: 14-3A004.

    Date Deemed Submitted: May 9, 2016.

    Proposed Amendment

    1. Change the name of existing Member Diamond Foods, Inc. to Diamond Foods, LLC.

    DFA's proposed amendment of its Export Trade Certificate of Review would result in the following entities as Members under the Certificate:

    1. Alpine Pacific Nut Company, Hughson, CA 2. Andersen & Sons Shelling, Vina, CA 3. Avanti Nut Company, Inc., Stockton, CA 4. Berberian Nut Company, LLC, Chico, CA 5. Carriere Family Farms, Inc., Glenn, CA 6. California Almond Packers and Exporters (CAPEX), Corning, CA 7. California Walnut Company, Inc., Los Molinos, CA 8. Chico Nut Company, Chico, CA 9. Continente Nut LLC, Oakley, CA 10. C. R. Crain & Sons, Inc., Los Molinos, CA 11. Crain Walnut Shelling, Inc., Los Molinos, CA 12. Crisp California Walnuts, Stratford, CA 13. Diamond Foods, LLC, Stockton, CA 14. Empire Nut Company, Colusa, CA 15. Fig Garden Packing, Inc., Fresno, CA 16. Gold River Orchards, Inc., Escalon, CA 17. Grower Direct Nut Company, Hughson, CA 18. GSF Nut Company, Orosi, CA 19. Guerra Nut Shelling Company, Hollister, CA 20. Hill View Packing Company Inc., Gustine, CA 21. Mariani Nut Company, Winters, CA 22. Mariani Packing Company, Inc., Vacaville, CA 23. Mid Valley Nut Company Inc., Hughson, CA 24. Morada Nut Company, LP, Stockton, CA 25. National Raisin Company, Fowler, CA 26. O-G Nut Company, Stockton, CA 27. Omega Walnut, Inc., Orland, CA 28. Pearl Crop, Inc., Stockton, CA 29. Poindexter Nut Company, Selma, CA 30. Prima Noce Packing, Linden, CA 31. RPC Packing Inc., Porterville, CA 32. Sacramento Packing, Inc., Yuba City, CA 33. Sacramento Valley Walnut Growers, Inc., Yuba City, CA 34. San Joaquin Figs, Inc., Fresno, CA 35. Shoei Foods USA, Inc., Olivehurst, CA 36. Stapleton-Spence Packing, Gridley, CA 37. Sun-Maid Growers of California, Kingsburg, CA 38. Sunsweet Growers Inc., Yuba City, CA 39. Taylor Brothers Farms, Inc., Yuba City, CA 40. T.M. Duche Nut Company, Inc., Orland, CA 41. Wilbur Packing Company, Inc., Live Oak, CA 42. Valley Fig Growers, Fresno, CA Dated: May 17, 2016. Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11991 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE628 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish, Rockfish, and Eulachon AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; applications for four new scientific research permits, two permit modifications, and one permit renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received seven scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon, steelhead, rockfish, sturgeon, and eulachon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at: https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/preview/preview_open_for_comment.cfm.

    DATES:

    Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email to [email protected] (include the permit number in the subject line of the fax or email).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2314), Fax: 503-230-5441, email: [email protected]). Permit application instructions are available from the address above, or online at https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Species Covered in This Notice

    The following listed species are covered in this notice:

    Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened Puget Sound (PS); threatened California Coastal (CC).

    Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened PS; threatened Northern California (NC).

    Chum salmon (O. keta): Threatened Hood Canal Summer-run (HCS).

    Coho salmon (O. kisutch): Threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC).

    Sockeye salmon (O. nerka): Threatened Ozette Lake (OL).

    Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus): Threatened Southern (S).

    Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris): Threatened S.

    Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis): Endangered Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB).

    Canary rockfish (S. pinniger): Threatened PS/GB.

    Yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus): Threatened PS/GB.

    Authority

    Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

    Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

    Applications Received Permit 1586-4R

    The NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, and PS/GB bocaccio and juvenile, sub-adult, and adult PS Chinook salmon. The NWFSC research may also cause them to take juvenile PS/GB canary rockfish, juvenile PS/GB yelloweye rockfish, and adult S eulachon—species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The purpose of the NWFSC study is to characterize how wild, juvenile PS Chinook salmon and various forage fish species use nearshore habitats in the oceanographic basins of the Puget Sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and the San Juan Islands (Washington). The project would benefit the listed species by helping managers develop protection and restoration strategies and monitor the effects of recovery actions by determining if nearshore populations are increasing or decreasing. It would also help mangers establish baseline abundance/composition metrics and genetic structures for nearshore populations throughout Puget Sound. The NWFSC proposes to capture fish using beach seines, Nordic surface trawls, lampara nets, purse seines, and hook-and-line angling. Captured fish would be transferred to live-wells, mesh pens, or aerated buckets. They would then be identified to species, counted, measured to length, weighed, checked for tags and fin clips, fin clipped for genetic analysis, and released. The NWFSC researchers would intentionally kill a subset of the captured PS Chinook salmon: For juveniles, they would kill hatchery and natural-origin fish; for sub-adults, they would only kill listed hatchery fish that have had their adipose fins clipped. The purpose of this activity is to obtain coded-wire tags for hatchery release information, otoliths for saltwater entry information, scales for genetic analysis, tissue samples for chemistry analysis, and stomach contents for diet analysis. These analyses would help managers determine contaminant exposure levels in the listed fish and determine how that exposure relates to nearby land use. The work would also provide information on population distribution and timing. Any fish that are accidentally killed as an unintended result of the overall work would be used to replace any proposed intentional sacrifice.

    Permit 17062-5M

    The NWFSC is seeking to modify a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, and PS/GB bocaccio. The NWFSC research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon and juvenile and adult PS/GB canary rockfish and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish—species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The modified permit would increase the amounts of take they are allotted and allow additional methods and procedures. Sampling would take place throughout the Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal, Washington. The purposes of the study are to (1) determine how much genetic variation exists between coastal and PS/GB DPS populations of bocaccio, canary rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish; (2) monitor long-term survival, movement patterns, and recovery from barotrauma from a subset of ESA-listed rockfish; (3) study how the low dissolved oxygen concentrations within the Hood Canal region of Puget Sound may cause listed rockfish species to alter their patterns of movement and activity; and (4) investigate whether eelgrass bed characteristics (patch size and level of nearby urbanization) affect the relative quality of these habitats as nursery habitat for rockfishes in the Puget Sound. The research would benefit rockfish by addressing various concerns related to the management status and eventual recovery of these species by collecting the necessary biological, genetic, habitat, and movement behavior information. The NWFSC proposes to capture fish by (1) using hook and line equipment at depths of 50-100 meters; (2) using a hand net while SCUBA diving at depths up to 40 meters; and (3) using minnow traps and Standard Monitoring Units for the recruitment of Reef Fishes (SMURFs) in or near eelgrass beds. For the hook and line fishing, captured rockfish would be slowly reeled to the surface and returned to the water via rapid submersion techniques to reduce barotrauma. For the hand netting, juvenile rockfish would be processed either at the capture site or brought to the surface before being released by rapid submersion. All captured ESA-listed rockfish would be measured, sexed, have a tissue sample taken, floy tagged, and released. A subset of these bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish would have an external acoustic transmitter attached to track movement, activity, and survivorship. If an individual of these species is captured dead or deemed nonviable, it would be retained for genetic analysis. All other fish would be immediately released at the capture site. For the minnow traps and SMURFs, they would be brought to the surface; emptied into a tub of water; and the fish would be identified by species, enumerated, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    Permit 17851-2M

    The Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI) is seeking to modify a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and HCS chum salmon. The CWI research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The modified permit would increase the amounts of take they are currently allotted. Sampling would take place in the Elwha River estuary, Washington. The purpose of the research is to examine ecological function in the Elwha River nearshore environment with respect to determining how that environment supports fish species. The researchers would look at the population structures, migration timing, and life history strategies among local salmonids (Chinook, chum, sea-run cutthroat, steelhead, and bull trout) and measure ecological indices as well. The research would benefit listed species by generating information on the species' habitat needs and response to the removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams. The CWI proposes to capture fish using a beach seine. Captured fish would be identified by their lowest taxonomic level. Twenty individuals from each species would be measured and released. Salmonids would be scanned for fin clips and tags. The researchers do not propose to kill any listed fish being captured, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

    Permit 20047

    The University of Washington (UW) is seeking a three-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, and PS/GB bocaccio. The UW research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon and juvenile PS/GB canary rockfish and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish—species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling would take place throughout the Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and Willapa Bay, Washington. The purpose of the study is to directly compare fish communities in seagrass-vegetated habitats and unvegetated tideflats at five intertidal sites where native eelgrass is found naturally interspersed with bare areas. The research would benefit listed species by evaluating their response to eelgrass habitats on Washington state tideflats and thereby help inform planning decisions regarding preserving, restoring, and monitoring selected aquatic sites. The UW proposes to capture fish using a beach seine. Captured fish would be identified to species, counted, measured to length (first 10 individuals of each species), and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    Permit 20104

    The Pacific Shellfish Institute (PSI) is seeking a three-year research permit to annually take juvenile CC and PS Chinook salmon, NC and PS steelhead, SONCC coho salmon, HCS chum salmon, and S green sturgeon. The PSI research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling would take place in Samish Bay (Puget Sound, Washington), Willapa Bay (Washington), and Humboldt Bay (California). The purposes of the study are to (1) measure and quantify the effect of shellfish culture on seagrass and its function as habitat for fish and invertebrates; (2) determine the distribution of, and spatial relationship between, existing shellfish culture and seagrass in several Pacific Northwest estuaries; and (3) synthesize data and parameterize production functions for higher trophic level species of interest (i.e., English sole, crab, salmon) across habitat types. The research would benefit listed species by (1) increasing knowledge at a landscape scale regarding the influence aquaculture may have on estuarine habitats and (2) improving development of environmentally and economically sustainable shellfish farming practices that minimize impacts on listed species. The PSI proposes to observe/harass fish using modified fyke net/camera deployments and capture fish using Breder traps. The modified fyke net/camera deployments will be left open-ended with four wings (hourglass shape) with two cameras to identify species; no fish will be handled. For the Breder traps, fish will be identified to species, counted, measured, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    Permit 20349

    The FRIENDS of the San Juans (FSJ) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in bays and intertidal zones around the San Juan Islands (Puget Sound, Washington). The FSJ research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The purpose of the FSJ study is to assess fish utilization of shallow water and beach habitats before and after restoration activities. The research would benefit listed species by providing data for evaluating restoration project success. The FSJ proposes to capture fish using a beach seine. Captured fish would be identified to species, counted, measured to length (first 20 individuals of each species), and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    Permit 20451

    The UW is seeking a two-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult OL sockeye salmon in Lake Ozette (northwest Washington). The purpose of the UW study is to investigate the interactions of native predators (i.e., northern pikeminnow, sculpin) and non-native predators (i.e. largemouth bass, yellow perch) with Olympic mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi), a state sensitive species. The research would benefit the listed species because OL sockeye are similarly threatened by the same predators. The UW proposes to capture fish using minnow traps, hoop nets, gill nets, trammel nets, and hook and line. For OL sockeye salmon, captured fish would be handled and released. After the listed fish are released, the remaining fish would be anesthetized, fin clipped, gastric lavaged (or for northern pikeminnow, sacrificed), and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11999 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE630 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Committee Meeting on Wednesday, June 8, 2016, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., to view the agenda, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Boston Logan Airport, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 571-5478; fax: (617) 561-0798.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Committee will review the general workload for 2016 based on Council priorities and a draft action plan for Scallop Framework 28 (FW28) and potentially identify recommendations for prioritizing work items in upcoming actions. The Committee will also review progress on potential management measures that may be included in FW28, including: (1) Measures to restrict the possession of shell stock inshore of 42°20′ N.; (2) Modifications to the process for setting scallop fishery annual catch limits (ACL flowchart); (3) Measures to modify scallop access areas consistent with potential changes to habitat and groundfish mortality closed areas; and (4) Development of gear modifications to further protect small scallops. The Committee will provide research recommendations for the 2017/2018 Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) federal funding announcement and potentially discuss other RSA policies and program details.

    The Committee will give a brief update on the required five-year review of the limited access general category IFQ program as well as review Advisory Panel recommendations. Other business may be discussed.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11995 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Multistakeholder Process To Develop Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Facial Recognition Technology AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will convene a meeting of a privacy multistakeholder process concerning the commercial use of facial recognition technology on June 15, 2016.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 15, 2016 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. See Supplementary Information for details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Travis Hall, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3522; email [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: On February 23, 2012, the White House released Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy (the “Privacy Blueprint”).1 The Privacy Blueprint directs NTIA to convene multistakeholder processes to develop legally enforceable codes of conduct that specify how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights applies in specific business contexts.2 On December 3, 2013, NTIA announced that it would convene a multistakeholder process with the goal of developing a code of conduct to protect consumers' privacy and promote trust regarding facial recognition technology in the commercial context.3 On February 6, 2014, NTIA convened the first meeting of the multistakeholder process, followed by additional meetings through March 2016.

    1 The Privacy Blueprint is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf.

    2Id.

    3 NTIA, Facial Recognition Technology, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology.

    Matters to Be Considered: The June 15, 2016 meeting is a continuation of a series of NTIA-convened multistakeholder discussions concerning facial recognition technology. Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop a code of conduct regarding facial recognition technology. The June 15, 2016 meeting will build on stakeholders' previous work. More information about stakeholders' work is available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology.

    Time and Date: NTIA will convene a meeting of the privacy multistakeholder process regarding facial recognition technology on June 15, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting date and time are subject to change or cancellation. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology, for the most current information.

    Place: The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006. The location of the meeting is subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology, for the most current information.

    Other Information: The meeting is open to the public and the press. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Travis Hall at (202) 482-3522 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. The meeting will also be webcast. Requests for real-time captioning of the webcast or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Travis Hall at (202) 482-3522 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders viewing the webcast to participate remotely in the meeting through a moderated conference bridge, including polling functionality. Access details for the meeting are subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/privacy-multistakeholder-process-facial-recognition-technology, for the most current information.

    Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11935 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on spectrum management policy matters.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 8, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, 1800 M Street NW., Suite 800N, Washington, DC 20036. Public comments may be mailed to Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4600, Washington, DC 20230 or emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David J. Reed, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-5955 or [email protected]; and/or visit NTIA's Web site at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on needed reforms to domestic spectrum policies and management in order to: License radio frequencies in a way that maximizes public benefits; keep wireless networks as open to innovation as possible; and make wireless services available to all Americans. See Charter at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_2015_charter_renewal_2-26-15.pdf. This Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and is consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. 904(b). The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. For more information about the Committee visit: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

    Matters To Be Considered: The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary to assist in developing and maintaining spectrum management policies that enable the United States to maintain or strengthen its global leadership role in the introduction of communications technology, services, and innovation; thus expanding the economy, adding jobs, and increasing international trade, while at the same time providing for the expansion of existing technologies and supporting the country's homeland security, national defense, and other critical needs of government missions. The Committee will hear reports of the following Subcommittees:

    1. Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands (Bi-directional Sharing) 2. Agency and Industry Collaboration 3. Measurement and Sensing in 5 GHz band 4. Spectrum Access System (SAS)/Spectrum Database International Extension 5. 5G

    NTIA will post a detailed agenda on its Web site, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac, prior to the meeting. To the extent that the meeting time and agenda permit, any member of the public may speak to or otherwise address the Committee regarding the agenda items. See Open Meeting and Public Participation Policy, available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

    Time and Date: The meeting will be held on June 8, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT. The meeting time and the agenda topics are subject to change. The meeting will be available via two-way audio link and may be webcast. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac, for the most up-to-date meeting agenda and access information.

    Place: The meeting will be held at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, 1800 M Street NW., Suite 800N, Washington, DC 20036. Public comments may be mailed to Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4600, Washington, DC 20230. The meeting will be open to the public and members of the press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Reed at (202) 482-5955 or [email protected] at least ten (10) business days before the meeting.

    Status: Interested parties are invited to attend and to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before or after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of a meeting must send them to NTIA's Washington, DC office at the above-listed address and comments must be received five (5) business days before the scheduled meeting date to provide sufficient time for review. Comments received after this date will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting. It would be helpful if paper submissions also include a compact disc (CD) in Word or PDF format. CDs should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer. Alternatively, comments may be submitted electronically to [email protected] Comments provided via electronic mail also may be submitted in one or more of the formats specified above.

    Records: NTIA maintains records of all Committee proceedings. Committee records are available for public inspection at NTIA's Washington, DC office at the address above. Documents including the Committee's charter, member list, agendas, minutes, and any reports are available on NTIA's Committee Web page at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

    Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11934 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective June 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addition

    On 7/2/2015 (80 FR 38179), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Sourcing, Warehousing, Assembly and Kitting Service Service Is Mandatory for: Montana Army National Guard, Ft Harrison, MT Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: United States Property and Fiscal Office (USPFO) Montana, Montana Army National Guard, Fort Harrison, MT Deletions

    On 4/8/2016 (81 FR 20624) and 4/15/2016 (81 FR 22239), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 938—Set, Cleaning, Microfiber, Leaf Print, 5 Piece MR 951—Set, Cleaning, Microfiber, Cherry Print, 5 Piece Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: New York City Industries for the Blind, Inc., Brooklyn, NY (Deleted) Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 417—Latex Gloves, Long Cuff, Medium, 2 Pair MR 418—Latex Gloves, Long Cuff, Large, 2 Pair Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Alphapointe, Kansas City, MO Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Service Type: Library Service Mandatory for: Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: J.P. Industries, Inc., Tucson, AZ Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4877 355 CONS LGC, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations, (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2016-11998 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletion AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletion from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a service previously furnished by such agency.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before 6/19/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6135-00-985-7846—Battery, Non-Rechargeable, C, Alkaline 6135-00-835-7210—Battery, Non-Rechargeable, D, Alkaline Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Eastern Carolina Vocational Center, Inc., Greenville, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 7490-00-NIB-0046—Label Printer, High Speed, PC and Mac, Black/Silver 7490-00-NIB-0047—Label Maker, Industrial, Handheld, Orange 7490-00-NIB-0050—Kit, Desktop Label Maker 7510-00-NIB-1081—Tape, Label, Black on White, 1/2″ x 24′ 7510-00-NIB-1082—Cartridge, Label, Black on White, 3/4″ x 26.2′ 7510-01-NIB-1054—Cartridge, Label, Black on Clear, 1/2″ x 23′ 7510-01-NIB-1055—Cartridge, Label, Black on Yellow, 1/2″ x 23′ 7510-01-NIB-1056—Cartridge, Label, White on Black, 1/2″ x 23′ 7510-01-NIB-1057—Cartridge, Label, Heat Shrink Tube, Black on White, 1/2″ x 5′ 7530-00-NIB-1174—Labels, File Folder, Black on White, 9/16” x 37/16 7530-00-NIB-1175—Labels, Address, Black on White, 11/8″ x 31/2 7530-00-NIB-1176—Labels, Shipping, Black on White, 21/8″ x 4″ 7530-00-NIB-1177—Labels, Name Badge, Clip Hole, Black on White 21/4″ x 4″ Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired—Goodwill Industries of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 8520-00-NIB-0134—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Green-Certified, 8 oz. Bottle 8520-00-NIB-0135—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Green-Certified, 12 oz. Bottle 8520-00-NIB-0141—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Alcohol-Free, Foam, 535 ml Pump Bottle 8520-00-NIB-0142—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Alcohol-Free, Foam, 45 ml Pump Bottle 8520-00-NIB-0143—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Alcohol-Free, Foam, 1200 ml LTX Cartridge Refill 8520-00-NIB-0144—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Alcohol-Free, Foam, 1200 ml ADX Cartridge Refill Mandatory for: Department of Homeland Security Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Travis Association for the Blind, Austin, TX Contracting Activity: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Procurement Operations Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 10732—Hershey's Lava Cake Maker, Shipper 20732; MR 10733—Reese's Lava Cake Maker, Shipper 20733 Mandatory for: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-List Services Service Type: Base Supply Center Service Mandatory For: USPFO, Camp Mabry, 2200 West 35th Street, Austin, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W7N2 USPFO ACTIVITY TX ARNG, Austin, TX Service Type: Laundry and Linen Service Service Mandatory For: US Navy, Naval Medical Center, 34800 Bob Wilson Drive, San Diego, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Job Options, Inc., San Diego, CA Contracting Activity: Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA Service Type: Warehouse Support Service Service Mandatory for: Health and Human Services, Program Support Center, Supply Service Center, Bldg 5, Perry Point, MD, Supply Service Center, 4 Center Drive, North East, MD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Didlake, Inc., Manassas, VA Contracting Activity: Department of Health and Human Services, Perry Point, MD Deletion

    The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Mandatory for: Middle River Depot, 2800 Eastern Blvd., Baltimore, MD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chimes, Inc., Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: GSA/PBS/R03 Regional Contracts Support Services Section, Philadelphia, PA Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2016-11997 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2014-0033] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Army & Air Force Exchange Service (Exchange), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Army & Air Force Exchange Service announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 19, 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 for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, ATTN: Mailbox 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Office of the General Counsel, Compliance Division, Attn: Teresa Schreurs, 3911 South Walton Walker Blvd., Dallas, TX 75236-1598 or call the Exchange Compliance Division at 800-967-6067.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Exchange Accident/Incident Reports; Exchange Form 3900-017, “Statements”, OMB Control Number: 0702-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to record incidents such as accidents, mishaps, fires, thefts or any issue involving government property. This collection insures the Exchange has the necessary information regarding injuries and illnesses in order to administer and follow-up on medical treatment and payment of claims. Collection assists the Exchange in recouping damages, correcting deficiencies, initiating appropriate disciplinary action(s), filing insurance and workers' compensation required documents.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households and Federal Government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 4,854.

    Number of Respondents: 4,854.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 4,854.

    Average Burden per Response: 60 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are Exchange employees, family members, customers, guests, visitors, and members of the public who have been involved in incidences relative to damage to Exchange property or facilities, have been suspected of shoplifting or theft or have been injured or developed an illness on any incident occurring at Exchange facilities.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11890 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Proposals by Non-Federal Interests, for Feasibility Studies and for Modifications to an Authorized Water Resources Development Project or Feasibility Study, for Inclusion in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development AGENCY:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 7001 of Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) 2014 requires that the Secretary of the Army to annually submit to the Congress a report (Annual Report) that identifies feasibility reports, proposed feasibility studies submitted by non-Federal interests, and proposed modifications to an authorized water resources development project or feasibility study that meet certain criteria. The Annual Report is to be based, in part, upon requests for proposals submitted by non-Federal interests.

    DATES:

    Proposals must be submitted online by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit proposals online at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectPlanning/WRRDA7001Proposals.aspx. If a different method of submission is required, use the further information below to arrange an alternative submission process.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Send an email to the help desk at [email protected] or call Lisa Kiefel, Planning and Policy Division, Headquarters, USACE, Washington, DC at 202-761-0626.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 requires the publication of a notice in the Federal Register to request proposals by non-Federal interests for feasibility studies and modifications to an authorized USACE water resources development project or feasibility study. Project feasibility reports that have successfully completed Executive Branch review, but have not been authorized will be included in the Annual Report table by the Secretary of the Army and these proposals do not need to be submitted in response to this notice.

    Proposals by non-Federal interests must be entered online and require the following information:

    1. The name of all non-Federal interests planning to act as the sponsor, including any non-Federal interest that has contributed to or is expected to contribute toward the non-Federal share of the proposed feasibility study or modification.

    2. State if this proposal is for a feasibility study or a modification to an authorized USACE water resources development project or feasibility study and, if a modification, specify the authorized water resources development project or study that is proposed for modification.

    3. State the specific project purpose(s) of the proposed study or modification.

    4. Provide an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the total cost, and the Federal and non-Federal share of those costs, of the proposed study and, separately, an estimate of the cost of construction or modification.

    5. Describe, to the extent applicable and practicable, an estimate of the anticipated monetary and non-monetary benefits of the proposal with regard to benefits to the protection of human life and property; improvement to transportation; the national economy; the environment; or the national security interests of the United States.

    6. Describe if local support exists for the proposal.

    7. State if the non-Federal interest has the financial ability to provide for the required cost share, reference ER 1105-2-100.

    8. Upload a letter or statement of support from each associated non-Federal interest.

    All provided information may be included in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development. Therefore, information that is Confidential Business Information; information that should not be disclosed because of statutory restrictions; or other information that a non-Federal interest would not want to appear in the Annual Report should not be included.

    Process: Proposals received within the time frame set forth in this notice will be reviewed by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army and will be presented in one of two tables. The first table will be in the Annual Report itself, and the second table will be in an appendix. To be included in the Annual Report table, the proposals must meet the following criteria:

    1. Are related to the missions and authorities of the USACE;

    Involves a proposed or existing USACE water resources project or effort whose primary purpose is flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, or aquatic ecosystem restoration. Following long-standing USACE practice, related proposals such as for recreation, hydropower, or water supply, are eligible for inclusion if undertaken in conjunction with such a project or effort.

    2. Require specific congressional authorization, including by an Act of Congress;

    This is envisioned to comprise the following cases:

    a. SEEKING CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION.

    • Signed Chief's Reports or non-Federal feasibility reports submitted to the Secretary of the Army under Section 203 of WRDA 1986, as amended, under review,

    • Signed Chief's Report or non-Federal feasibility reports not yet submitted to the Secretary of the Army under Section 203 of WRDA 1986, as amended,

    • Ongoing feasibility studies that are expected to result in a Chief's Report, and

    • Proposed modifications to authorized water resources development projects requested by non-Federal interests through the Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 process.

    b. SEEKING STUDY AUTHORIZATION.

    • New feasibility studies proposed by non-Federal interests through the Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 process will be evaluated by the USACE to determine whether or not there is existing study authority, and

    • Proposed modifications to studies requested by non-Federal interests through the Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 process.

    c. The following cases are NOT CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE to be included in the Annual Report and will be included in the appendix for transparency:

    • Proposals for modifications to non-Federal activities where USACE has provided previous technical assistance. Examples of this type of work include the various environmental infrastructure programs. Authorization to provide technical assistance does not provide authorization of a water resources development project.

    • Proposals for construction of a new water resources development project that is not the subject of a currently authorized USACE project or a complete or ongoing feasibility study.

    • Proposals that do not include a request for a potential future water resources development project through completed feasibility reports, proposed feasibility studies, and proposed modifications to authorized projects or studies.

    d. For proposals seeking new construction authorization, CONSTRUCTION ON ANY PROJECT IN THE ANNUAL REPORT TABLE CANNOT PROCEED UNTIL Congress authorizes and funds the project.

    3. Have not been congressionally authorized;

    4. Have not been included in the Annual Report table of any previous Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development; and

    • If the proposal was included in the Annual Report table in a previous Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development, then the proposal is not eligible to be included in the Annual Report table. If a proposal was previously included in an appendix it may be re-submitted.

    5. If authorized, could be carried out by the USACE.

    • Whether following the USACE Chief's Report process or Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014, a proposal for a project or a project modification would need a current decision document to provide updated information on the scope of the potential project and demonstrate a clear Federal interest. This determination would include an assessment of whether the proposal is:

    —Technically sound, economically viable and environmentally acceptable. —Compliant with environmental and other laws including but not limited to National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. —Compliant with statutes and regulations related to water resources development including various water resources provisions related to the authorized cost of projects, level of detail, separable elements, fish and wildlife mitigation, project justification, matters to be addressed in planning, and the 1958 Water Supply Act.

    Feasibility study proposals submitted by non-Federal interests are for the study only. If Congressional authorization of a feasibility study results from inclusion in the Annual Report, it is anticipated that such authorization would be for the study not for construction. Once a decision document is completed in accordance with Executive Branch policies and procedures, the Secretary will determine whether to recommend the project for authorization.

    Section 902 of WRDA 1986 establishes a maximum authorized cost for projects (902 limit). A Post Authorization Change Report (PACR) is required to be completed to support potential modifications, updates to project costs, and an increase to the 902 limit. Authority to undertake a 902 study is inherent in the project authority, so no authority is required to proceed with the study. Since these PACRs support project modifications, they may be considered for inclusion in the Annual Report if a report's recommendation requires Congressional authorization.

    The Secretary shall include in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development a certification stating that each feasibility report, proposed feasibility study, and proposed modification to an authorized water resources development project or feasibility study included in the Annual Report meets the criteria established in Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014.

    Please contact the appropriate district office or use the contact information above for assistance in researching and identifying existing authorizations and existing USACE decision documents. Those proposals that do not meet the criteria will be included in an appendix table included in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development. Proposals in the appendix table will include a description of why those proposals did not meet the criteria.

    Dated: May 6, 2016. Steven L. Stockton, Director of Civil Works.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11944 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0029] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Foreign Graduate Medical School Consumer Information Reporting Form AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0029. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-103, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Foreign Graduate Medical School Consumer Information Reporting Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0117.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 28.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 448.

    Abstract: This is a request for a renewal of the information collection to obtain consumer information from foreign graduate medical institutions that participate in the Federal Direct Loan Program. The form is used for reporting specific graduation information to the Department of Education in accordance with 34 CFR 668.14(b)(7). This is done to improve consumer information available to prospective U.S. medical student interested in foreign medical institutions.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11927 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2335-039] Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: New Major License.

    b. Project No.: 2335-039.

    c. Date filed: December 11, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC (White Pine Hydro).

    e. Name of Project: Williams Hydroelectric Project (Williams Project).

    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Kennebec River in Somerset County, Maine. The project does not occupy federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Kelly Maloney, Manager of Licensing and Compliance, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, 150 Main Street, Lewiston, ME 04240; Telephone: (207) 755-5606.

    i. FERC Contact: Amy Chang, (202) 502-8250 or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions 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-2335-039.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.

    l. The Project Description: The Williams Project has a total installed capacity of 13-megawatts (MW). The project's average annual generation is 96,731 megawatt-hours. The power generated by the project is sold on the open market into the regional grid.

    The existing project consists of: (1) A 894.7-foot-long, 46.0-foot-high dam that includes: (a) A 202-foot-long, 15-foot-high earth embankment section with a concrete core wall; (b) a 244-foot-long, 32-foot-high stone masonry and concrete spillway section with six 32.5-foot-wide, 20.5-foot-high Tainter gates; (c) a 71.3-foot-long, 19.5-foot-high stone masonry and concrete abutment section; (d) a 203.3-foot-long, 26.5-foot-high stone masonry and concrete stanchion bay section with two 65.9-foot-wide, 17.5-foot-high and one 46.8-foot-wide, 17.5-foot-high stanchion bays; (e) a 27-foot-long, 46-foot-high bulkhead section with a 20.5-foot-wide, 7.0-foot-high surface weir gate and a 6.0-foot-wide, 12.3-foot-high Tainter gate at the upstream end of a 162-foot-long, 14-foot-wide steel-lined sluiceway; (f) a 95.5-foot-wide, 45.5- to 49.4-foot-high intake and powerhouse section with four headgates and two double-bay trashracks with 3.5-inch clear-bar spacing; and (g) a 51.6-foot-long, 10.5-foot-high concrete cut-off wall; (2) a 400-acre impoundment with a gross storage volume of 4,575 acre-feet and a useable storage volume of 2,065 acre-feet at a normal maximum elevation of 320 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum; (3) a 40.5-foot-wide, 105.5-foot-long concrete powerhouse that is integral with the dam and contains two turbine-generator units rated at 6 and 7 MW; (4) a 6,000-foot-long, 150- to 175-foot-wide excavated tailrace; (5) a 200-foot-long generator lead and a 310-foot-long generator lead that connect the turbine-generator units to the regional grid; and (6) appurtenant facilities.

    The Williams Project operates in a store-and-release mode where the impoundment level is fluctuated up to 6 feet on a daily basis to re-regulate inflow from upstream hydroelectric projects, maintain downstream flow, and meet peak demands for hydroelectric generation. The existing license requires an instantaneous minimum flow of 1,360 cubic feet per second, or inflow (whichever is less), in the tailrace. White Pine Hydro proposes to install an upstream eel passage facility, improve a canoe portage, and improve angler access. White Pine Hydro also proposes to remove 375.5 acres of land and water from the existing project boundary because it does not serve a project purpose.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 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. A copy of the application is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST,” “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRELIMINARY PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

    Milestone Target date Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions July 2016. Commission Issues Environmental Assessment November 2016. Comments on Environmental Assessment December 2016. Modified terms and conditions February 2017.

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in 18 CFR 5.22: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11897 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF16-3-000] Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Eastern System Upgrade Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Eastern System Upgrade Project (ESU Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC (Millennium) in Sullivan, Delaware, Orange, and Rockland Counties, New York. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the ESU Project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the ESU Project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the ESU Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 10, 2016.

    If you sent comments on the ESU Project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on January 19, 2016, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF16-3-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the ESU Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the ESU Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the ESU Project docket number (PF16-3-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426

    Summary of the Planned Project

    Millennium plans to construct and operate about 7.8 miles of 30- and 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop 1 in Orange County, New York. The planned pipeline loop would transport natural gas from Millennium's existing Corning Compressor Station to an existing interconnect with Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC in Ramapo, New York. Millennium would also construct a new compressor station in Sullivan County, New York; install additional compression at the Hancock Compressor Station in Delaware County, New York; and modify the Westtown Meter Station in Orange County, New York and the Ramapo Meter Station in Rockland County, New York. According to Millennium, the ESU Project would be designed to transport approximately 200,000 dekatherms per day of additional natural gas service. The general location of the ESU Project facilities is shown in appendix 1.2

    1 A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to an existing pipeline to increase capacity.

    2 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all of those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    The ESU Project would consist of the following facilities in New York:

    • Approximately 7.8 miles of new 30- and 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop to be located generally adjacent to Millennium's existing mainline in Orange County;

    • a new 22,400-horsepower compressor station in Sullivan County;

    • an additional 22,400 horsepower of compression at the existing Hancock Compressor Station in Delaware County;

    • modifications at the existing Ramapo Meter Station in Rockland County;

    • modifications at the existing Huguenot and Westtown Meter Stations in Orange County; and

    • construction of an interconnect to Millennium's proposed Valley Lateral Pipeline.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 199.6 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline loop. Millennium would maintain about 51.0 acres for permanent operation of the ESU Project's facilities following construction; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. Most of the pipeline loop would be located within Millennium's existing easements, offset about 25 feet from Millennium's existing pipeline.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 3 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    3 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned ESU Project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues and will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.4 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    4 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the ESU Project's potential effects on historic properties.5 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the ESU Project develops. For natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    5 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the ESU Project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.

    Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (see appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Millennium files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the ESU Project.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the ESU Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF16-3). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11908 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13753-002; Project No. 13762-002; Project No. 13763-002; Project No. 13766-002; Project No. 13767-002; Project No. 13771-002] FFP Missouri 16, LLC; FFP Missouri 15, LLC; FFP Missouri 13, LLC; Solia 5 Hydroelectric, LLC ; Solia 4 Hydroelectric, LLC ; Solia 8 Hydroelectric, LLC ; Notice of Technical Conference

    On Wednesday, June 1, 2016, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff will hold a technical conference to discuss cultural resources related to the following six proposed hydroelectric projects to be located on the Monongahela River: Opekiska Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13753, Morgantown Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13762, Gray's Landing Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13763, Maxwell Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13766, Monongahela Lock and Dam Number Four Hydroelectric Project No. 13767, and Point Marion Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13771.

    The technical conference will begin at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission headquarters building located at 888 1st Street NE., Washington, DC, and will include teleconference capabilities.

    All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate. There will be no transcript of the conference, but a summary of the meeting will be prepared for the project record. If you are interested in participating in the meeting you must contact Allyson Conner at (202) 502-6082 or [email protected] by May 31, 2016 to receive specific instructions on how to participate.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about this technical conference, please contact: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected]

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11907 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP16-618-000] Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice Establishing Comment Period

    On May 9, 2016, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff held a technical conference to discuss issues raised in the protests and comments regarding the February 19, 2016 filing made by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC in the above-captioned docket.1 This notice establishes the comment periods for parties wishing to submit comments following the technical conference. All parties are invited to submit initial comments on or before Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Reply comments are due on or before Friday, June 10, 2016.

    1Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 154 FERC ¶ 61,269 (2016).

    For more information, please contact Anna Fernandez at [email protected] or (202) 502-6682 or Frank Sparber at [email protected] or (202) 502-8335.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11898 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-27-000] Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Delaware River Pipeline Relocation Project

    On December 1, 2015, Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Paulsboro) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-27-000 requesting authorization and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to abandon, construct, and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Delaware River Pipeline Relocation Project (Project).

    On December 11, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA—July 18, 2016 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—October 16, 2016

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    Paulsboro proposes to abandon about 2.4 miles of 6- and 8-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending across the Delaware River between Delaware County, Pennsylvania and Gloucester County, New Jersey. Paulsboro would replace the abandoned pipeline with 2.6 miles of 12- and 24-inch-diameter pipeline installed under the Delaware River using the horizontal directional drill method. The purpose of the Project is to facilitate the United States Army Corps of Engineers' dredging activities for the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project (45-Foot Project). The Project would increase natural gas transportation capacity from 38 million standard cubic feet per day (MMScf/d) to 57.7 MMScf/d to the sole customer served by the pipeline, Paulsboro Refining Company, LLC.

    Background

    On January 19, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Delaware River Pipeline Relocation Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was published in the Federal Register and mailed to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.

    In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from Consolidated Rail Corporation, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office, and Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office. The primary issues raised by the commentors included state permit requirements and environmental compliance; potential impacts on cultural and natural resources; cumulative impacts; pipeline safety; future upgrades of Paulsboro's facilities and systems; and natural gas production methods.

    The Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP16-27), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11899 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR16-17-000] Tricon Energy Ltd. and Rockbriar Partners Inc. v. Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 9, 2016, Tricon Energy Ltd. (Tricon) and Rockbriar Partners Inc. (Rockbriar) (collectively, Complainants) filed a protest, complaint, and motion to intervene in response to Colonial Pipeline Company's (Colonial or Respondent) tariff filing in Docket No. IS16-259-000. The motion to intervene and protest portion of Tricon's and Rockbriar's pleading was placed in the IS16-259-000 docket. The complaint portion of Tricon's and Rockbriar's pleading is being separately docketed in the proceeding captioned above.

    Tricon and Rockbriar assert that Colonial is attempting to enforce a shipper history transfer policy that is not in the tariff that locks out New Shippers from obtaining capacity on Colonial in violation of Colonial's statutory common carrier duty set forth in section 1(4) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). Tricon and Rockbriar assert that Colonial's practice violates the ICA's tariff publication requirement in section 6(1), as well as the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 341.0(b)(1), 341.3(b)(6), and 341.8. Tricon and Rockbriar assert that Colonial's New Shipper lockout policy is a facet of its prorationing policy, and a restriction on service, that has not been reviewed and approved by the Commission to be part of Colonial's Tariff.

    The Complainants certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the Respondents.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2016.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11888 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL16-68-000] DesertLink, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on May 11, 2016, pursuant to section 219 of the Federal Power Act,1 Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,2 Order No. 679,3 and the Commission's November 15, 2012 policy statement on transmission incentives,4 DesertLink, LLC, (DesertLink or Petitioner), filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting the Commission authorize specific rate incentives and treatments for DesertLink's Harry Allen to Eldorado 500 kV Transmission Project, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824s (2012).

    2 18 CFR 385.207 (2015).

    3Promoting Transmission Investment through Pricing Reform, Order No. 679, 71 Fed.

    Reg. 43,294 (July 31, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,222 (2006) (“Order No. 679”),

    order on reh'g, Order No. 679-A, 72 FR 1152 (Jan. 10, 2007); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,236 (2006) (“Order No. 679-A”); order denying reh'g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2007).

    4Promoting Transmission Investment through Pricing Reform, 141 FERC ¶ 61,129 (2012) (“Policy Statement”).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 10, 2016.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11904 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-325-001.

    Applicants: EDF Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing 2016 EDF Energy to be effective 5/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-326-001.

    Applicants: EDF Industrial Power Services (CA), LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing 2016 to be effective 5/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-327-001.

    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing 2016 EDF Trading to be effective 5/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1610-001.

    Applicants: V3 Commodities Group, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1 to be effective 5/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5148.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1694-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 4461, Queue No. W4-027 to be effective 1/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5090.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1695-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule Nos. 222, 282 and 283 to be effective 7/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1696-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA No. 4459; Queue No. AB1-116 to be effective 4/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1697-000.

    Applicants: Ingenco Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of market based tariff of Ingenco Holdings, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1698-000.

    Applicants: Avista Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Avista Rate Schedule T-1054 LT UOF Agreement to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1699-000.

    Applicants: Avista Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Avista Rate Schedule T-1056 LT UOF Agreement to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1700-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits First Quarter 2016 Capital Budget Report.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1701-000.

    Applicants: Granite Mountain Solar East, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Comp. Filing—Amended MBR Tariff Limits and Exemptions to be effective 7/12/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1702-000.

    Applicants: Granite Mountain Solar West, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Comp. Filing—Amendment to MBR Tariff Limits and Exemptions to be effective 7/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1703-000.

    Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Category 2 Notice re Central Region to be effective 5/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF16-823-000.

    Applicants: Gloversville-Johnstown Joint Wastewater.

    Description: Form 556 of Gloversville-Johnstown Joint Wastewater Facility.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5264.

    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11887 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2934-028] New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.

    b. Project No.: 2934-028.

    c. Dated Filed: March 30, 2016.

    d. Submitted By: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.

    e. Name of Project: Upper Mechanicville Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Hudson River, in Saratoga and Rensselaer Counties, New York. The project does not occupy federal lands.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's Regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Steve Mullin, Hydro-License Coordinator, Lead Analyst—Environmental Compliance, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, 89 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14649.

    i. FERC Contact: Jody Callihan at (202) 502-8278 or email at [email protected]

    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402 and (b) the 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. With this notice, we are designating New York State Electric & Gas Corporation as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    m. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    n. A copy of the PAD is available for 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.

    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.

    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents 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] 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-2934-028.

    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by July 15, 2016.

    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the Commission.

    Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

    Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2016.

    Time: 7:00 p.m.

    Location: Hilton Garden Inn (Whitney/Travers Room), 30 Clifton Country Road, Clifton Park, New York 12065.

    Phone: (518) 371-7777.

    Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m.

    Location: Hilton Garden Inn (Whitney/Travers Room), 30 Clifton Country Road, Clifton Park, New York 12065.

    Phone: (518) 371-7777.

    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link. Follow the directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified through the scoping process.

    Environmental Site Review

    The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an Environmental Site Review of the project on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, starting at 9:00 a.m. All participants should meet at the Upper Mechanicville Hydroelectric Plant, located at 40 Hudson Avenue, Mechanicville, New York 12118. All participants are responsible for their own transportation. Anyone with questions about the site visit should contact Mr. Steve Mullin of New York State Electric & Gas Corporation at (585) 771-4556 on or before June 1, 2016.

    Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.

    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.

    Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11943 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP16-357-000 and PF15-31-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 29, 2016, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas) 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP16-357-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct and operate the Mountaineer XPress Project, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at 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 at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to S. Diane Neal, Assistant General Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, at (713) 386-3745.

    Specifically Columbia Gas proposes to: (i) Construct and operate approximately 170.1 miles of various diameter pipeline, (ii) modify threes existing compressor stations, (iii) construct and operate three new compressor stations, (iv) and install various appurtenant and auxiliary facilities, all located in either Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Doddridge, Ritchie, Calhoun, Wirt, Roane, Jackson, Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Cabell, and Wayne Counties, West Virginia. The project will provide approximately 2.7 million dekatherms per day of additional capacity for firm transportation service. Columbia Gas is proposing incremental rates for transportation service on the facilities proposed for construction herein. The cost of the project will be approximately $2.059 billion.

    On September 16, 2015 the Commission staff granted Columbia Gas' request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF15-31-000 to staff activities involved in the Project. Now, as of the filing of the April 29, 2016 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP16-357-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 3, 2016.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11893 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1889-085; Project No. 2485-071] FirstLight Hydro Generating Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: New Major License.

    b. Project Nos.: 1889-085 and 2485-071.

    c. Date Filed: April 29, 2016.

    d. Applicant: FirstLight Hydro Generating Company (FirstLight).

    e. Name of Project: In the final license application, FirstLight proposes to combine the existing Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project and Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project into a single project that would be named the Northfield Project.

    f. Location: The existing projects are located on the Connecticut River in Franklin County, Massachusetts; Windham County, Vermont; and Cheshire County, New Hampshire. The project boundary includes approximately 20 acres of federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Gus Bakas, Director-Massachusetts Hydro, FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, Northfield Mountain Station, 99 Millers Falls Road, Northfield, MA 01360; Telephone: (413) 422-5915 or [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Brandon Cherry, (202) 502-8328 or [email protected].

    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    k. The Project Description: The Northfield Project would have a total installed capacity of 1,234.452 megawatts (MW). The project's average annual generation would be approximately 1,381,913 megawatt-hours (MWh) and average annual energy consumption from pumping would be approximately 1,437,464 MWh. The power generated by the project would be transmitted to the region through the New England Independent System Operator, a regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity.

    Turners Falls Development

    The proposed Turners Falls Development would consist of the following existing facilities: (1) A 630-foot-long, 35-foot-high dam (Montague dam) that includes: (i) Four 120-foot-wide, 13.25-foot-high bascule gates; and (ii) a 170-foot-long fixed section with a crest elevation of 185.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29); (2) a 493-foot-long, 55-foot-high dam (Gill dam) that includes: (i) Three 40-foot-wide, 39-foot-high tainter gates; and (ii) 97.3- and 207.5-foot-long fixed sections with crest elevations of 185.5 feet NGVD 29; (3) a 2,110-acre impoundment with a useable storage volume of 16,150 acre-feet between elevations 176.0 feet and 185.0 feet NGVD 29; (4) a 214-foot-long, 33-foot-high gatehouse that includes six 9-foot-wide, 10.66-foot-high gates and nine 9.5-foot-wide, 12.6-foot-high gates; (5) a 2.1-mile-long, 120- to 920-foot-wide, 17- to 30-foot-deep power canal; (6) a 700-foot-long, 100-foot-wide, 16- to 23-foot-deep branch canal; (7) the Station No.1 generating facility that includes: (i) Eight 15-foot-wide bays with trashracks with 2.625-inch clear-bar spacing; (ii) four 100-foot-long, 13.1- to 14-foot-diameter penstocks; (iii) a 134-foot-long, 64-foot-wide powerhouse that contains five turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 5.636 MW; (iv) four 21-foot-long, 6.5-foot-diameter draft tubes; (v) five 40- to 70-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt (kV) generator leads that connect the turbine-generator units to a generator bus; (vi) a 110-foot-long, 2.4-kV generator lead that connects the generator bus to a substation; and (vii) a 20-foot-long, 2.4-kV generator lead that connects the substation to three transformers; (8) the Cabot Station generating facility that includes: (i) An intake structure with 217-foot-wide, 31-foot-high trashracks with 0.94-inch and 3.56-inch clear-bar spacing; (ii) six 70-foot-long penstocks; (iii) a 235-foot-long, 79.5-foot-wide powerhouse that contains six turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 62.016 MW; (iv) six 41-foot-long, 12.5- to 14.5-foot-diameter draft tubes; (v) six 80- to 250-foot-long, 13.8-kV generator leads that connect the turbine-generator units to a generator bus; (vi) a 60-foot-long, 13.8-kV generator lead that connects the generator bus to the powerhouse roof; and (vii) a 200-foot-long, 13.8-kV generator lead that connects to a transformer; (9) eight 13.6-foot-wide, 16.7-foot-high power canal spillway gates that are adjacent to Cabot Station; (10) a 16.2-foot-wide, 13.1-foot-high log sluice gate in the Cabot Station forebay with an 8-foot-wide weir for downstream fish passage; (11) a 200-foot-long, 7-foot-diameter drainage tunnel (Keith Drainage Tunnel) and headgate; (12) a 955-foot-long, 5-foot-diameter lower drainage tunnel; (13) an 850-foot-long, 16-foot-wide, 10-foot-high fishway (Cabot fishway); (14) a 500-foot-long, 10-foot-wide, 10-foot-high fishway (Spillway fishway); (15) a 225-foot-long, 16-foot-wide, 17.5-foot-high fishway (Gatehouse fishway); and (16) appurtenant facilities.

    Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Development

    The proposed Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Development would consist of the following existing facilities: (1) A 1-mile-long, 30-foot-wide, 30- to 140-foot-high main dam that includes: (i) An intake structure with two 7-foot-wide, 9-foot-high sluice gates and an 8-foot-diameter outlet pipe; and (ii) a 589-foot-long, 2-foot-diameter low-level outlet pipe; (2) a 425-foot-long, 25-foot-high dike (North dike); (3) a 2,800-foot-long, 45-foot-high dike (Northwest dike); (4) a 1,700-foot-long, 40-foot-long dike (West dike); (5) a 327-foot-long, 10- to 20-foot-high gravity dam; (6) an ungated 550-foot-long, 6-foot-high spillway structure with a 20-foot-long notch at an elevation of 1,005.0 feet NGVD 29; (7) a 286-acre impoundment (upper reservoir) with a useable storage volume of 12,318 acre-feet between elevations 938.0 feet and 1,000.5 feet NGVD 29; (8) a 2,110-acre impoundment (lower reservoir or Turners Falls impoundment); (9) a 1,890-foot-long, 130-foot-wide intake channel with a 63-foot-long, 9-foot-high submerged check dam and two 6-foot-wide, 2.75-foot-high sluice gates and two 18-foot-wide stoplogs; (10) a 200-foot-long, 55-foot-wide, 80-foot-high pressure shaft; (11) an 853-foot-long, 31-foot-diameter penstock; (12) two 22-foot-diameter, 100- to 150-foot-long penstocks; (13) four 340-foot-long, 9.5- to 14-foot-diameter penstocks; (14) a 328-foot-long, 70-foot-wide powerhouse that contains four reversible pump turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 1,166.8 MW; (15) four 25-foot-long, 11-foot-diameter draft tubes that transition to a 20-foot-long, 17-foot-diameter draft tube; (16) a 5,136-foot-long, 33-foot-wide, 31-foot-high horseshoe-shaped tailrace tunnel; (17) 35-foot-long, 40-foot-high trapezoid-shaped stoplogs with 74.3- to 99.5-foot-wide, 48-foot-high trashracks with 6-inch clear-bar spacing; (18) four 26-foot-long, 13.8-kV generator leads that connect the turbine-generator units to four transformers; (19) two 3,000-foot-long, 345-kV pipe-type cables from the transformers to the Northfield Switching Station; (20) a 650-foot-long, 15-foot-deep fixed-position fish barrier guide net; and (21) appurtenant facilities.

    The existing Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project operates in peaking and run-of-river modes depending on inflows. The existing license requires maintaining the impoundment between elevations 176.0 feet and 185.0 feet NGVD 29, and releasing a continuous minimum flow of 1,433 cubic feet per second, or inflow (whichever is less), from the project. FirstLight did not propose any changes to operation of this facility in its application.

    The existing Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project generally operates in pumping mode during low-load periods and generating mode during high-load periods. In the summer and winter, the project generally operates in a peaking mode in the morning and late afternoon. In the spring and fall, the project may operate in a peaking mode one or two times a day depending on electricity demand. The existing license requires maintaining the upper reservoir between elevations 938.0 feet and 1,000.5 feet NGVD 29 (i.e., a maximum reservoir drawdown of 62.5 feet).

    FirstLight proposes to increase the maximum water surface elevation of the upper reservoir to 1,004.5 feet NGVD 29 and decrease the minimum water surface elevation of the upper reservoir to 920.0 feet NGVD 29 (i.e., a maximum reservoir drawdown of 84.5 feet) year-round.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 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, please 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 item (h) above.

    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Procedural Schedule: In the final license application, FirstLight states that it will file an amended final license application after it completes all of the required studies in the approved study plan. On May 5, 2016, Commission staff issued a revised process plan and schedule that include milestones and dates for the filing and review of FirstLight's outstanding study reports. After FirstLight completes and files the outstanding study reports and amended final license application, Commission staff will issue a revised procedural schedule with target dates for the post-filing milestones listed below.

    Milestone Target date Amended Final License Application TBD Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis TBD Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions TBD Commission issues Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) TBD Comments on Draft EIS TBD Modified terms and conditions TBD Commission issues Final EIS TBD

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11889 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC08-126-001.

    Applicants: LS Power Development, LLC, Luminus Management, LLC.

    Description: Request for Suspension of Reporting Obligations, LS Power Development, LLC and Luminus Management, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5306.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-98-000.

    Applicants: Paulding Wind Farm III LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EWG of Paulding Wind Farm III LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-055; ER10-2319-046; ER10-2317-046; ER13-1351-028; ER10-2330-053.

    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, BE Alabama LLC, BE CA LLC, Florida Power Development LLC, Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the JPMorgan Sellers.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5259.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1331-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended Filing-Clarify Process to Study Requests for Short-Term Service to be effective 5/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5047.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1689-000.

    Applicants: ArcelorMittal Cleveland LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Petition for Acceptance of Market-Based Rate to be effective 6/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1690-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: 20160513 ER16-524 CSU Renewable Energy Credits to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1691-000.

    Applicants: Escalante Solar III, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Comp. Filing—Amendment to MBR Tariff Limits. and Exemptions to be effective 7/12/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1692-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule Nos. 44, 98, 211—Four Corners Acquisition to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1693-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Reassignment of Service Agreement Nos. 350, 351 and 352 to be effective 4/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160513-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES16-35-000.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Description: Application of MDU Resources Group, Inc. for Authorization to issue securities for the Long-Term Performance Based Incentive Plan.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11886 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2146-165] Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Recreation Plan.

    b. Project No: 2146-165.

    c. Date Filed: March 31, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.

    e. Name of Project: Coosa River Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Coosa River in Cherokee, Calhoun, Etowah, St. Clair, Talladega, Chilton, Coosa, Shelby, and Elmore Counties, Alabama, as well as Floyd County, Georgia.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: David Anderson, Alabama Power Company, 600 18th Street North, P.O. Box 2641, Birmingham, AL, 35203-8180, (205) 257-1398, [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Mark Ivy, (202) 502-6156, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: June 13, 2016.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests 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-2146-165.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: As required by article 413 of the license, Alabama Power Company requests Commission approval of a proposed recreation plan for the project. The recreation plan provides a description of all existing and proposed recreation sites at the project (including any planned improvements at each site), an evaluation of existing signage at each site, a review of soil erosion and sediment control measures planned to stabilize shorelines where ground disturbing activities may occur, a discussion of refuse management at project recreation sites including implementation of a “carry in/carry out” program, a description of how the needs of persons with disability were considered in the planning and design of recreation facilities, and a provision to monitor woody debris.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 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. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11896 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2997-031] South Sutter Water District; 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.: 2997-031.

    c. Date Filed: March 14, 2016.

    d. Submitted by: South Sutter Water District.

    e. Name of Project: Camp Far West Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Bear River, in Yuba, Nevada, and Placer Counties, California. 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: Bradley J. Arnold, General Manager/Secretary, South Sutter Water District, 2464 Pacific Avenue, Trowbridge, CA 95659; (530) 656-2242; email—[email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Quinn Emmering at (202) 502-6382; or email at [email protected].

    j. South Sutter Water District filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on March 11, 2016. South Sutter Water District provided public notice of its request on April 14, 2016. In a letter dated May 13, 2016, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved South Sutter Water District'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 thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the California 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. With this notice, we are designating South Sutter Water District as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    m. South Sutter Water District 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.

    n. A copy of the PAD is available for 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.

    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2997-031. 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 June 30, 2019.

    p. 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: May 13, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11906 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. AD16-15-000; ER16-1085-000; ER16-1649-000] Reliability Technical Conference; California Independent System Operator Corporation; California Independent System Operator Corporation; Supplemental Notice With Agenda

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on February 3, 2016, the Commission will hold a technical conference on Wednesday, June 1, 2016 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. The agenda for this conference is attached. Commission members will participate in this conference.

    Advanced registration is not required, but is encouraged. Attendees may register at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-01-16-form.asp.

    After the close of the conference, the Commission will accept written comments regarding the matters discussed at the technical conference. Any person or entity wishing to submit written comments regarding the matters discussed at the conference should submit such comments in Docket No. AD16-15-000 on or before July 8, 2016.

    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700). A free webcast of this event is also available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to the webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-993-3100.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected]

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11892 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Joint Electric System Planning Working Group May 16, 2016, 10:00 p.m.-11:30 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/calendar/index.jsp.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Joint Electric System Planning Working Group and Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee Meeting May 25, 2016, 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/calendar/index.jsp.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-120. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-1942. New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-966.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or [email protected]

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11895 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2153-041] United Water Conservation District; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Trail Plan.

    b. Project No: 2153-041.

    c. Date Filed: April 1, 2016.

    d. Applicant: United Water Conservation District.

    e. Name of Project: Santa Felicia Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on Piru Creek in Ventura County, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony Emmert, United Water Conservation District, 106 N 8th Street, Santa Paula, CA 93060, (805) 525-4431, [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Mark Ivy, (202) 502-6156, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: June 13, 2016.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests 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-2153-041.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: As required by article 411 of the license, United Water Conservation District requests Commission approval of a proposed trail plan for the project. The trail plan focuses on enhancing access to two existing U.S. Forest Service trails (Pothole Trail and by extension, the Agua Blanca Trail) through the development of a trailhead for the Pothole Trail and upgrading the access road.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 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. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11905 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP16-361-000] Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 29, 2016, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2400, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP16-361-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct and operate the Gulf XPress Project, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at 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 at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Matthew J. Agen, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2400, Houston, Texas 77056 at (713) 386-3619.

    Specifically Columbia Gulf proposes to construct and operate seven new compressor stations and add compression to an existing compressor station, as well as other appurtenant facilities located in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The project will provide approximately 860,000 dekatherms per day of additional capacity for firm transportation service. Columbia Gas is proposing incremental rates for transportation service on the facilities proposed for construction herein. Columbia Gulf is proposing to establish incremental rates for transportation service on the facilities proposed for construction herein. The cost of the project will be approximately $674 million.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 3, 2016.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11894 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9946-73-OA] Notification of a Public Meeting of the Science Advisory Board; Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the SAB Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel to provide advice on the development of phosphorus loading targets for Lake Erie.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on June 21, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Central Time) and on June 22, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (Central Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, 17 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public who wants further information concerning this public meeting may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 564-2155 or via email at [email protected] General information concerning the SAB can be found at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel will hold a public meeting to provide advice to the EPA on the development of phosphorus loading targets for Lake Erie. The Panel will provide advice to the Administrator through the chartered SAB. The Panel previously met in 2014 to develop advice on modeling approaches to meet the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Lake Ecosystem Objectives (79 FR 68441-68442).

    EPA Region 5 is co-leading a binational workgroup to develop and implement the Nutrients Annex (“Annex 4”) of the 2012 GLWQA in accordance with Article 3(b)(i) of the GLWQA. Under Annex 4, the United States and Canada were charged with establishing binational Substance Objectives for phosphorus concentrations, loading targets, and allocations for the nearshore and offshore waters of Lake Erie. The EPA Region 5 Water Division has requested that the SAB review modeling results that informed the development of the binational phosphorus reduction targets. The EPA has also requested advice on future work to support implementation and evaluation of nutrient reduction goals for Lake Erie. The SAB Panel will review the documents titled Annex 4 Ensemble Modeling Report and Appendix B, and Recommended Phosphorus Loading Targets for Lake Erie. Additional information about this SAB advisory activity can be found at the following URL http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/GLWQA%20Annex%204?OpenDocument.

    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning work conducted under the GLWQA Annex 4 and the documents to be reviewed by the SAB should be directed to Ms. Santina Wortman, Water Division, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (WW-15J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, by telephone at (312) 353-8319 or via email at [email protected]

    Availability of the meeting materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, meeting agenda and other materials will be accessible on the meeting page on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant information on the topic of this advisory activity, including the charge to the panel and the EPA review documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it consists of comments that provide specific scientific or technical information or analysis for the SAB panel to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at the meeting will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Interested parties should contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, in writing (preferably via email), at the contact information noted above, by June 14, 2016 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting.

    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by Panel members, statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by June 14, 2016. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for advisory meetings. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Armitage at the contact information provided above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Armitage preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Thomas H. Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11973 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9946-72-OARM] National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology Meeting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, EPA gives notice of a public meeting of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and management issues. NACEPT members represent academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and state, local and tribal governments. The purpose of this meeting is for NACEPT to continue developing recommendations to the Administrator regarding actions that EPA should take in response to technological and sociological developments in the area of citizen science. A copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/nacept.

    DATES:

    NACEPT will hold a two-day public meeting on June 13, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EST) and June 14, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the EPA Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building South, Room 2138, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer, [email protected], (202) 564-2432, U.S. EPA, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management, and Outreach (MC1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to NACEPT should be sent to Eugene Green at [email protected] by June 6, 2016. The meeting is open to the public, with limited seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend should contact Eugene Green via email or by calling (202) 564-2432 no later than June 6, 2016.

    Meeting Access: Information regarding accessibility and/or accommodations for individuals with disabilities should be directed to Eugene Green at the email address or phone number listed above. To ensure adequate time for processing, please make requests for accommodations at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: May 3, 2016. Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11972 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9027-1] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 05/09/2016 Through 05/13/2016 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20160105, Final, BLM, NV, Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 and Closure Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/20/2016, Contact: Kathleen Rehberg 775-623-1500. EIS No. 20160106, Draft, DOS, CA, Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project, Presidential Permit Application Review, Comment Period Ends: 07/05/2016, Contact: Jill Reilly 202-647-9798. EIS No. 20160107, Draft Supplement, EPA, CT, Designation of Dredged Material Disposal Site(s) in Eastern Long Island Sound (ELIS), Comment Period Ends: 07/05/2016, Contact: Jean Brochi 617-918-1536. EIS No. 20160108, Final Supplement, BLM, ID, Proposed Cottonwood Resource Management Plan Amendment for Domestic Sheep Grazing, Review Period Ends: 06/20/2016, Contact: Scott Pavey 208-769-5059. EIS No. 20160109, Final, USACE, LA, Southwest Coastal Louisiana, Review Period Ends: 06/20/2016, Contact: William P. Klein, Jr. 504-862-2540. Amended Notices EIS No. 20160077, Draft, BLM, UT, Enefit Utility Corridor Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/14/2016, Contact: Stephanie Howard 435-781-4469 Revision to FR Notice Published 04/15/2016; Correction to Comment Period Ends from 06/07/2016 to 06/14/2016. EIS No. 00000000, Final, NRC, NV, NUREG-2184, Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada—Final Report, Contact: Christine Pineda 301-415-6789. Revision to FR Notice Published 05/13/2016. Prepared in accordance with NWPA § 114 and 10 CFR 51.109, which describe the NRC's NEPA process for its review of the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Dated: May 17, 2016. Karin Leff, Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11962 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Advisory Committee Act; Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability; Council Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) V will hold its fifth meeting.

    DATES:

    June 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffery Goldthorp, Designated Federal Officer, (202) 418-1096 (voice) or [email protected] (email); or Suzon Cameron, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, (202) 418-1916 (voice) or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be held on June 22, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    The CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will provide recommendations to the FCC regarding best practices and actions the FCC can take to help ensure the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems. On March 19, 2015, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, renewed the charter for the CSRIC for a period of two years through March 18, 2017. The meeting on June 22, 2016, will be the fifth meeting of the CSRIC under the current charter. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Jeffery Goldthorp, CSRIC Designated Federal Officer, by email to [email protected] or U.S. Postal Service Mail to Jeffery Goldthorp, Associate Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 7-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

    Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way the FCC can contact you if it needs more information. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last-minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11920 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10006, First Integrity Bank, National Association Staples, Minnesota

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for First Integrity Bank, National Association, Staples, Minnesota (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of First Integrity Bank, National Association on May 30, 2008. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11996 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 2, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Sam Charles Brown and Josephine Marie Brown, Pueblo, Colorado; to retain voting shares and thereby control of Pueblo Bancorporation, parent of Pueblo Bank & Trust Company, both of Pueblo, Colorado. In addition, Michelle Rene Brown, Kenneth Scott Brown, Karla Lynn Brown, and Sam Charles Brown, III, all of Pueblo, Colorado, request approval to retain shares of Pueblo Bancorp and for approval as members of the Brown Family Group, which acting in concert controls Pueblo Bancorp.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 13, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11863 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend, for three years, the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Contact Lens Rule. This clearance expires on September 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Contact Lens Rule: FTC File No. P054510” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/contactlensrulepra by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for copies of the collection of information and supporting documentation should be addressed to Alysa S. Bernstein, Attorney, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Drop CC-10528, Washington, DC 20580, at (202) 326-3289.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing PRA clearance for the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's rules and regulations under the Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR part 315 (OMB Control Number 3084-0127).

    The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond. All comments must be received on or before July 19, 2016.

    The Rule was promulgated by the FTC pursuant to the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (FCLCA), Public Law 108-164 (Dec. 6, 2003), which was enacted to enable consumers to purchase contact lenses from the seller of their choice. The Rule became effective on August 2, 2004. As mandated by the FCLCA, the Rule requires the release and verification of contact lens prescriptions and contains recordkeeping requirements applying to both prescribers and sellers of contact lenses.

    Specifically, the Rule requires that prescribers provide a copy of the prescription to the consumer upon the completion of a contact lens fitting, even if the patient does not request it, and verify or provide prescriptions to authorized third parties. The Rule also mandates that a contact lens seller may sell contact lenses only in accordance with a prescription that the seller either: (a) Has received from the patient or prescriber; or (b) has verified through direct communication with the prescriber. In addition, the Rule imposes recordkeeping requirements on contact lens prescribers and sellers. For example, the Rule requires prescribers to document in their patients' records the medical reasons for setting a contact lens prescription expiration date of less than one year. The Rule requires contact lens sellers to maintain records for three years of all direct communications involved in obtaining verification of a contact lens prescription, as well as prescriptions, or copies thereof, which they receive directly from customers or prescribers.

    The information retained under the Rule's recordkeeping requirements is used by the Commission to substantiate compliance with the Rule and may also provide a basis for the Commission to bring an enforcement action. Without the required records, it would be difficult either to ensure that entities are complying with the Rule's requirements or to bring enforcement actions based on violations of the Rule.

    No substantive provisions in the Rule have been amended or changed since staff's prior submission to OMB.1 Thus, the Rule's disclosure and recordkeeping requirements remain the same.

    1 The FTC most recently submitted clearance three years ago. 78 FR 9391 (Feb. 8, 2013) and 78 FR 44122 (Jul. 23, 2013).

    Estimated total annual hours burden: Approximately 1,796,764 hours.

    This figure is derived by adding 843,159 disclosure hours for contact lens prescribers to 953,605 recordkeeping hours for contact lens sellers, for a combined industry total of 1,796,764 hours. This is higher than estimates submitted to OMB in 2013 (the respective figure was 1,594,981 hours in July 2013). The higher estimate is due to an increase in the estimated number of contact lens wearers from 38 million (2012) to 41 million (2015), and an increase in the estimated percentage of verification requests that require the prescribers to make an affirmative response.

    1. Prescribers

    The Rule requires prescribers to make disclosures in two ways. Upon completing a contact lens fitting, the Rule requires that prescribers (1) provide a copy of the contact lens prescription to the patient, and (2) as directed by any person designated to act on behalf of the patient, provide or verify the contact lens prescription. Prescribers can verify a prescription either by responding affirmatively to a request for verification, or by not responding at all, in which case the prescription will be “passively verified” after eight business hours. Prescribers are also required to correct an incorrect prescription submitted by a seller, and notify a seller if the prescription submitted for verification is expired or otherwise invalid.2 Staff believes that the burden of complying with these requirements is relatively low.

    2 16 CFR 315.5.

    As noted above, the number of contact lens wearers in the United States is estimated to be approximately 41 million.3 Therefore, assuming an annual contact lens exam for each contact lens wearer, approximately 41 million people would receive a copy of their prescription each year under the Rule.4

    3 Jason J. Nichols, 2015 Annual Report: Contact Lenses 2015, Contact Lens Spectrum, Vol. 31, Jan. 2016, pp. 18-23, 18.

    4 In the past, some commentators have suggested that typical contact lens wearers obtain annual exams every 18 months or so, not every year. However, because most prescriptions are valid a minimum of one year under the Rule, and use of a longer exam cycle would lead to an estimate of a lower number of exams and a reduced burden, we continue to estimate that patients seek exams every 12 months.

    At an estimated one minute per prescription,5 the annual time spent by prescribers complying with the requirement to release prescriptions to patients would be approximately 683,333 hours. [(41 million × 1 minute)/60 minutes = 683,333 hours]. This estimate likely overstates the actual burden because it includes the time spent by prescribers who already release prescriptions to patients in the ordinary course of business.

    5 In the past, some commenters have suggested that prescribers spend three to five minutes providing a prescription to each patient. However, the Paperwork Reduction Act defines “burden” in such a way that it excludes any effort that would be expended regardless of a regulatory requirement. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). In most instances, an eye care professional would already spend time inputting the prescription into the patient's file regardless of the Rule, and the extra burden imposed by the Rule is merely copying that prescription for the patient, which we estimate at one minute.

    As stated above, prescribers may also be required to provide or verify contact lens prescriptions to sellers. According to recent survey data, approximately 35.6% of contact lens purchases are from a source other than the prescriber.6 Assuming that each of the 41 million contact lens wearers in the U.S. makes one purchase per year, this means that approximately 14,596,000 contact lens purchases (41 million × 35.6%) are made from sellers other than the prescriber.

    6 VisionWatch Eyewear U.S. Study, The Vision Council, Contact Lenses, December 2015, 11A.

    Based on recent discussions with industry, approximately 73% of sales by non-prescriber sellers require verification, and prescribers affirmatively respond (by notifying the seller that the prescription is invalid or incorrect) to approximately 15% of those verification requests. Using a response rate of 15%, the FTC therefore estimates that prescribers' offices respond to approximately 1,598,262 verification requests annually. [(14,596,000 × 73%) × 15% = 1,598,262 responses]. Additionally, some prescribers may voluntarily respond to verification requests and confirm prescriptions (as opposed to simply letting the prescription passively verify). Because correcting or declining incorrect prescriptions is mandated by the Rule and occurs in response to approximately 15% of requests, staff assumes that prescribers voluntarily confirm prescriptions less often, and confirm no more than an additional 15% of prescriptions. Using a combined response rate of 30%, the FTC estimates that prescribers' offices respond to approximately 3,196,524 requests annually.

    We estimate that responding to verification requests requires three minutes per request.7 Using that data, we estimate that these responses require an additional 159,826 hours annually. [(3,196,524 × 3 minutes)/60 minutes = 159,826 hours].

    7 This estimate is based on the Comment of Roger Jordan of the American Optometric Association, April 9, 2013, at 2, available on the FTC's Web site at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-479.

    Combining these hours with the hours spent disclosing prescriptions to consumers, we estimate a total of 843,159 hours for contact lens prescribers. [683,333 + 159,826 hours = 843,159 hours].

    Lastly, as required by the FCLCA, the Rule also imposes a recordkeeping requirement on prescribers. They must document the specific medical reasons for setting a contact lens prescription expiration date shorter than the one-year minimum established by the FCLCA. This burden is likely to be nil because the requirement applies only in cases when the prescriber invokes the medical judgment exception, which is expected to occur infrequently, and prescribers are likely to record this information in the ordinary course of business as part of their patients' medical records. As mentioned previously, the OMB regulation that implements the PRA defines “burden” to exclude any effort that would be expended regardless of a regulatory requirement.8

    8 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

    2. Sellers

    As noted above, a seller may sell contact lenses only in accordance with a valid prescription that the seller (a) has received from the patient or prescriber, or (b) has verified through direct communication with the prescriber. The FCLCA also requires sellers to retain prescriptions and records of communications with prescribers relating to prescription verification for three years. Staff believes that the burden of complying with these requirements is relatively low.

    As stated previously, there are approximately 14,596,000 sales by non-prescriber sellers annually and approximately 73% of those sales require verification. Therefore, sellers verify approximately 10,655,080 orders annually and retain two records for such sales: The verification request and any response from the prescriber. Staff estimates that sellers' verification and recordkeeping for those orders will entail a maximum of five minutes per sale. At an estimated five minutes per sale to each of the approximately 10,655,080 orders, contact lens sellers will spend a total of 887,923 burden hours complying with this portion of the requirement. [(10,655,080 orders × 5 minutes)/60 minutes = 887,923 hours].

    This means that approximately 27% of the remaining sales to non-prescriber sellers do not require verification and require the seller to keep only the prescription provided. Staff estimates that this recordkeeping burden requires at most one minute per order for 3,940,920 orders, resulting in 65,682 burden hours. [(3,940,920 orders × 1 minute)/60 minutes = 65,682 hours].

    Combining burden hours for all orders, staff estimates a total of 953,605 hours for contact lens sellers. This estimate likely overstates the actual burden because it includes the time spent by sellers who already keep records pertaining to contact lens sales in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the estimate may overstate the time spent by sellers to the extent that records (e.g., verification requests) are generated and stored automatically and electronically, which staff understands is the case for some online sellers.

    Estimated total labor cost burden: Approximately $61,540,563.

    Commission staff derived labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. Based on information from the industry, staff estimates that optometrists account for approximately 85% of prescribers. Consequently, for simplicity, staff will focus on their average hourly wage in estimating prescribers' labor cost burden.

    According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, salaried optometrists earn an average wage of $55.65 per hour and general office clerks earn an average wage of $15.33 per hour.9

    9 Press Release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics—May, 2015, available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm.

    Assuming that optometrists are performing the brunt of the labor for prescribers and office clerks are performing the labor for non-prescriber sellers, estimated total labor cost attributable to the Rule would be approximately $61,254,481. [($55.65 × 843,159 prescriber hours = 46,921,798) + ($15.33 × 953,605 office clerk hours = 14,618,765) = $61,540,563].

    The contact lens market is a multibillion-dollar market. One survey estimates that contact lens sales in the U.S. in 2015 totaled $4,664,200,000 at the retail level.10 The total labor cost burden estimate of $61,540,563 represents approximately 1.3% of the overall retail market.

    10 The Vision Council, US Optical Industry Report Card, December 2015.

    Request for Comments:

    You can file a comment online or on paper. Write “Contact Lens Rule: FTC File No. P054510” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as a Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, the Commission encourages you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/contactlensrulepra by following the instructions on the Web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Contact Lens Rule: FTC File No. P054510” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610, (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 19, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    David C. Shonka, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11952 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1665-N] Medicare Program; Announcement of the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (the Panel) Meeting on August 22-23, 2016 and Announcement of Transition to One Meeting of the Panel Per Year AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the summer meeting of the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (the Panel) for 2016. It also announces that the Panel will begin meeting once a year in the summer, beginning in Calendar Year 2017. Currently, the Panel convenes twice yearly. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (the Administrator) on the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups and their associated weights and hospital outpatient therapeutic services supervision issues.

    DATES:

    Meeting Dates: The second semi-annual meeting in 2016 is scheduled for the following dates and times. The times listed in this notice are Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and are approximate times; consequently, the meetings may last longer or be shorter than the times listed in this notice, but will not begin before the posted times:

    • Monday, August 22, 2016, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.

    • Tuesday, August 23, 2016, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.

    Meeting Information Updates: The actual meeting hours and days will be posted in the agenda. As information and updates regarding the onsite, webcast and teleconference meeting, and agenda become available, they will be posted to the CMS Web site at: http://cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups.html.

    Deadlines Deadline for Presentations and Comments

    Presentations or comments and form CMS-20017, (located at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/cmsforms/downloads/cms20017.pdf) must be received by 5 p.m. EDT, Friday, July 15, 2016. Presentations and comments that are not received by the due date and time will be considered late and will not be included on the agenda. In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1665-N.

    Meeting Registration Timeframe: Monday, June 27, 2016, through Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5 p.m. EDT.

    Participants planning to attend this meeting in person must register online, during the above specified timeframe at: https://www.cms.gov/apps/events/default.asp. On this Web page, double click the “Upcoming Events” hyperlink, and then double click the “HOP Panel” event title link and enter the required information. Include any requests for special accommodations.

    Note:

    Participants who do not plan to attend the meeting in person should not register. No registration is required for participants who plan to view the meeting via webcast.

    Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments and presentations by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

    Meeting Location, Webcast, and Teleconference

    The meeting will be held in the Auditorium, CMS Central Office, 7500 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, Maryland 21244-1850. Alternately, the public may either view this meeting via a webcast or listen by teleconference. During the scheduled meeting, webcasting is accessible online at: http://cms.gov/live. Teleconference dial-in information will appear on the final meeting agenda, which will be posted on the CMS Web site when available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups.html.

    News Media

    Representatives must contact our Public Affairs Office at (202) 690-6145.

    Advisory Committees' Information Lines

    The phone number for the CMS Federal Advisory Committee Hotline is (410) 786-3985.

    Web Sites

    For additional information on the Panel and updates to the Panel's activities, we refer readers to view our Web site at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups.html.

    Information about the Panel and its membership in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) database are also located at: http://facadatabase.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carol Schwartz, Designated Federal Official (DFO), 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop: C4-04-25, Woodlawn, MD 21244-1850. Phone: (410) 786-3985. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (the Secretary) is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and is allowed by section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to consult with an expert outside panel, that is, the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (the Panel) regarding the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups and relative payment weights. The Panel is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), to set forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS). The Panel (formerly the Advisory Panel on Ambulatory Payment Classification Groups) was originally chartered on November 21, 2000, and most recently re-chartered on November 6, 2014. The Panel Charter provides that the Panel shall meet up to 3 times annually. The first meeting of the Panel (was in Calendar Year (CY) 2001). For CY 2001 and 2002, the Panel convened once a year. At that time, the OPPS was new and there were many issues where the Panel provided important technical advice to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS). Agendas for these 2-day meetings were very full and it was decided that two, 2-day meetings per year would be warranted to accommodate the workload of the Panel. Beginning in CY 2003, the Panel has convened twice yearly, in the summer and in the winter. Over time and as the OPPS has matured, policies have become more stable and the volume of issues that the Panel has been requested to provide technical advice on has decreased significantly. The duration of these meetings has decreased significantly, with the most recent four meetings each averaging a half day or less in length.

    Beginning in CY 2016, new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes (effective on January 1 of the following year) are assigned status indicators and APC assignments in the OPPS proposed rule instead of being first assigned status indicators and APC assignments in the final rule. With this process change, stakeholders now provide their comments on the status indicators and APC assignments during the proposed rule comment period.

    II. Panel Meeting Transition to One Meeting of the Panel Per Year

    Beginning in CY 2003 and through CY 2016, we had 13 consecutive years of two Panel meetings a year. However, due to a significant decline in the volume of requests for technical advice from the Panel, beginning in CY 2017, we will transition back to 1 Panel meeting a year, which will be scheduled in the summer. Since the summer meeting occurs during the comment period for the OPPS proposed rule, we anticipate that there will be more requests for technical advice including the CMS treatment of new CPT codes, during this meeting than during a winter meeting. The winter Panel meeting is no longer necessary as a forum to discuss interim final status indicators and APC assignments of new codes because this process no longer exists. In CY 2017 and thereafter, (unless CMS programmatic need suggests otherwise) there will not be a winter Panel meeting; there will be only one Panel meeting per year that will occur in the summer.

    III. Agenda

    The agenda for the August 22 through August 23, 2016 Panel meeting will provide for discussion and comment on the following topics as designated in the Panel's Charter:

    • Addressing whether procedures within an APC group are similar both clinically and in terms of resource use.

    • Evaluating APC group structure.

    • Reviewing the packaging of OPPS services and costs, including the methodology and the impact on APC groups and payment.

    • Removing procedures from the inpatient-only list for payment under the OPPS.

    • Using single and multiple procedure claims data for CMS' determination of APC group weights.

    • Addressing other technical issues concerning APC group structure.

    • Recommending the appropriate supervision level (general, direct, or personal) for individual hospital outpatient therapeutic services.

    The Agenda will be posted on the CMS Web site at http://cms.hhs.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups.html approximately 1 week before the meeting.

    IV. Presentations

    The subject matter of any presentation and/or comment matter must be within the scope of the Panel designated in the Charter. Any presentations or comments outside of the scope of this Panel will be returned or requested for amendment. Unrelated topics include, but are not limited to, the conversion factor, charge compression, revisions to the cost report, pass-through payments, correct coding, new technology applications (including supporting information/documentation), provider payment adjustments, supervision of hospital outpatient diagnostic services and the types of practitioners that are permitted to supervise hospital outpatient services. The Panel may not recommend that services be designated as nonsurgical extended duration therapeutic services.

    The Panel may use data collected or developed by entities and organizations other than DHHS and CMS in conducting its review. We recommend organizations submit data for CMS staff and the Panel's review.

    All presentations are limited to 5 minutes, regardless of the number of individuals or organizations represented by a single presentation. Presenters may use their 5 minutes to represent either one or more agenda items.

    Section 508 Compliance

    For this meeting, we are aiming to have all presentations and comments available on the CMS Web site. Materials on the CMS Web site must be Section 508 compliant to ensure access to federal employees and members of the public with and without disabilities. We encourage presenters and commenters to refer to guidance on making documents Section 508 compliant as they draft their submissions, and, whenever possible, to submit their presentations and comments in a 508 compliant form. Such guidance is available at http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/CMS-Information-Technology/Section508/508-Compliant-doc.html. CMS will review presentations and comments for 508 compliance, and place compliant materials on its Web site. As resources permit, CMS will also convert non-compliant submissions to 508 compliant forms, and offer assistance to submitters who wish to make their submissions 508 compliant. All non-508 compliant presentations and comments will be shared with the public onsite and through the webcast and made available to the public upon request.

    Those wishing to access such materials should contact the DFO (the DFO's address, email and phone number are provided below).

    In order to consider presentations and/or comments, we will need to receive the following:

    1. An email copy of the presentation or comments sent to the DFO mailbox, [email protected] or, if unable to submit by email, a hard copy sent to the DFO at the address noted under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    2. Form CMS-20017 with complete contact information that includes name, address, phone number, and email addresses for all presenters and commenters and a contact person that can answer any questions and or provide revisions that are requested for the presentation. Presenters and commenters must clearly explain the actions that they are requesting CMS to take in the appropriate section of the form. A presenter's/commenter's relationship with the organization that they represent must also be clearly listed.

    • The form is now available through the CMS Forms Web site. The Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for linking to this form is as follows: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/cmsforms/downloads/cms20017.pdf.

    • We encourage presenters to make efforts to ensure that their presentations and comments are 508 compliant.

    V. Oral Comments

    In addition to formal oral presentations, which are limited to 5 minutes total per presentation, there will be an opportunity during the meeting for public oral comments, which will be limited to 1 minute for each individual and a total of 3 minutes per organization.

    VI. Meeting Attendance

    The meeting is open to the public; however, attendance is limited to space available. Priority will be given to those who pre-register and attendance may be limited based on the number of registrants and the space available.

    Persons wishing to attend this meeting, which is located on Federal property, must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration Timeframe” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.

    VII. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    The following are the security, building, and parking guidelines:

    • Persons attending the meeting, including presenters, must be pre-registered and on the attendance list by the prescribed date.

    • Individuals who are not pre-registered in advance may not be permitted to enter the building and may be unable to attend the meeting.

    • Attendees must present a government-issued photo identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel before entering the building. Without a current, valid photo ID, persons may not be permitted entry to the building.

    • Security measures include inspection of vehicles, inside and out, at the entrance to the grounds.

    • All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector.

    • All items brought into CMS including personal items, for example, laptops and cell phones are subject to physical inspection.

    • The public may enter the building 30 to 45 minutes before the meeting convenes each day.

    • All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first-floor levels in the Central Building.

    • The main-entrance guards will issue parking permits and instructions upon arrival at the building.

    • Foreign nationals visiting any CMS facility require prior approval. If you are a foreign national and wish to attend the meeting onsite, in addition to registering for the meeting, you must also send a separate email to [email protected] prior to the close of registration to request authorization to attend as a foreign national.

    VIII. Special Accommodations

    Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.

    IX. Panel Recommendations and Discussions

    The Panel's recommendations at any Panel meeting generally are not final until they have been reviewed and approved by the Panel on the last day of the meeting, before the final adjournment. These recommendations will be posted to the CMS Web site after the meeting.

    X. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: April 28, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11949 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Advisory Committees; Filing of Closed Meeting Reports AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that, as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Agency has filed with the Library of Congress the annual reports of those FDA advisory committees that held closed meetings during fiscal year 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies are available at the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500. You also may access the docket at http://www.regulations.gov for the annual reports of those FDA advisory committees that held closed meetings during fiscal year 2015. Insert the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document at http://www.regulations.gov into the “Search” box, clear filter under Document Type (left side of screen), and check “Supporting and Related Material,” then Sort By Best Match (from the drop-down menu; top right side of screen), “ID Number (Z-A)” or Sort By Best Match (from the drop-down menu) “Title (A-Z),” also found in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Ortwerth, Director and Committee Management Officer, Advisory Committee and Oversight Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.) and 21 CFR 14.60(d), FDA has filed with the Library of Congress the annual reports for the following FDA advisory committees that held closed meetings during the period October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015:

    Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Blood Products Advisory Committee National Center for Toxicological Research Science Board to the National Center for Toxicological Research Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Bone, Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee Joint Meetings of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee

    Annual Reports are available for public inspections between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    1. The Library of Congress, Madison Bldg., Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, 101 Independence Ave. SE., Rm. 133, Washington, DC; and

    2. The Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11853 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2015-M-4948, FDA-2015-M-4949, FDA-2015-M-4950, FDA-2016-M-0120, FDA-2016-M-0121, FDA-2016-M-0122, FDA-2016-M-0123, FDA-2016-M-0803, FDA-2016-M-0804, FDA-2016-M-0805, FDA-2016-M-0806, FDA-2016-M-0807, FDA-2016-M-0926, FDA-2016-M-0928] Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval Applications AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of premarket approval applications (PMAs) that have been approved. This list is intended to inform the public of the availability of safety and effectiveness summaries of approved PMAs through the Internet and the Agency's Division of Dockets Management.

    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 Nos. FDA-2015-M-4948, FDA-2015-M-4949, FDA-2015-M-4950, FDA-2016-M-0120, FDA-2016-M-0121, FDA-2016-M-0122, FDA-2016-M-0123, FDA-2016-M-0803, FDA-2016-M-0804, FDA-2016-M-0805, FDA-2016-M-0806, FDA-2016-M-0807, FDA-2016-M-0926, FDA-2016-M-0928 for “Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval Applications.” 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:

    Joshua Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1650, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6524.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In accordance with sections 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the FD&C Act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.

    The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet from January 1, 2016, through March 31, 2016. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.

    Table 1—List of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Approved PMAs Made Available From January 1, 2016, Through March 31, 2016 PMA No.,
  • Docket No.
  • Applicant Trade name Approval date
    H130006, FDA-2015-M-4950 Torax Medical, Inc FENIX Continence Restoration System 12/18/2015 H140005, FDA-2015-M-4948 ARUP Laboratories PDGFRB FISH for Gleevec Eligibility in Myelodysplastic Syndrome/Myeloproliferative Disease (MDS/MPD) 12/18/2015 H140006, FDA-2015-M-4949 ARUP Laboratories KIT D816V Mutation Detection by PCR for Gleevec Eligibility in Aggressive Systemic Mastocytosis (ASM) 12/18/2015 P130007/S004, FDA-2016-M-0120 Animas Corp Animas Vibe System 12/24/2015 P900033/S042, FDA-2016-M-0121 Integra LifeSciences Corp Integra Omnigraft Dermal Regeneration Matrix and Integra Dermal Regeneration Template 1/7/2016 P080028, FDA-2016-M-0122 Storz Medical Ag Storz Medical Duolith SD1 Shock Wave Therapy 1/8/2016 P150011, FDA-2016-M-0123 LivaNova Canada Corp Perceval Sutureless Heart Valve 1/8/2016 P150027, FDA-2016-M-0803 Dako North America, Inc PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx 1/23/2016 P150004, FDA-2016-M-0804 Spinal Modulation, Inc Axium Neurostimulator System 2/11/2016 P150022, FDA-2016-M-0805 Rex Medical, L.P Closer Vascular Sealing System 2/12/2016 P120018, FDA-2016-M-0806 Sharps Terminator, LLC Sharps Terminator 2/17/2016 P150005, FDA-2016-M-0807 Boston Scientific Corp Blazer Open-Irrigated Ablation Catheter System 2/24/2016 P130009/S037, FDA-2016-M-0926 Edwards Lifesciences, LLC SAPIEN XT Transcatheter Heart Valve and Accessories 2/29/2016 P020004/S123, FDA-2016-M-0928 W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc GORE EXCLUDER Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis 2/29/2016
    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/PMAApprovals/default.htm.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11856 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0133] Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” This guidance is intended to assist sponsors in designing a clinical development program for new drug products for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This guidance revises the draft guidance of the same name, issued November 9, 2007, by adding information regarding the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 19, 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-2007-D-0133 for “Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Badrul A. Chowdhury, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 3326, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2300.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” This guidance is intended to assist sponsors in designing a clinical development program for new drug products for the treatment of COPD. The emphasis of this guidance is on the assessment of efficacy of a new molecular entity (NME) in phase 3 clinical studies of COPD. Development of NMEs for COPD poses challenges and opportunities. Not all drugs developed for COPD will fit into the types described, and the efficacy endpoints discussed in this guidance may not fit the need for all drugs. FDA encourages sponsors to develop clinical programs that fit their particular needs and to discuss their planned approach with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Rheumatology Products. For novel approaches, where warranted, outside expertise can be sought, including consultation with the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee.

    This guidance revises the draft guidance of the same name, issued November 9, 2007 (72 FR 63618), by adding information on the use of SGRQ in COPD studies. FDA acknowledges the importance of assessing patient perspectives in clinical trials and therefore is interested in eliciting comment on the SGRQ, included in Appendix A.

    Also, this guidance outlines FDA's thinking based on information that was available in 2007 on the development of various types of drugs for COPD. FDA acknowledges that the landscape of clinical trials has evolved since 2007 and therefore is encouraging public comment on the body of the guidance in addition to public comment on the SGRQ information added in Appendix A.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the development of drug products for the treatment of COPD. 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.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11855 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Blood Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 20, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be Webcast and will be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/bpac2016/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Emery or Joanne Lipkind, Division of Scientific Advisors and Consultants, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6132, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8054, [email protected], and 240-402-8106, [email protected], respectively; or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: On June 20, 2016, the Committee members will participate in the meeting via teleconference. In open session, the Committee will discuss the research programs in the Laboratory of Plasma Derivatives in the Division of Hematology Research and Review, Office of Blood Research and Review, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: On June 20, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:20 p.m., the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June 6, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11:20 a.m. to 12:20 p.m. on June 20, 2016. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June 3, 2016. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 6, 2016.

    Closed Committee Deliberations: On June 20, 2016, from 12:20 p.m. to 1 p.m., the meeting will be closed to the public to permit discussion where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)). The Committee will discuss the site visit report of the intramural research programs and make recommendations regarding personnel staffing decisions.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bryan Emery at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11854 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: 340B Drug Pricing Program Reporting Requirements OMB No. 0915-0176—[Revision]

    Abstract: Section 602 of Public Law 102-585, the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, enacted section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) “Limitation on Prices of Drugs Purchased by Covered Entities.” Section 340B provides that a manufacturer who participates in Medicaid must sign a Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human Services in which the manufacturer agrees to charge enrolled covered entities a price for covered outpatient drugs that will not exceed an amount determined under a statutory formula. Covered entities who choose to participate in the section 340B Drug Pricing Program must comply with the requirements of 340B(a)(5) of the PHS Act. Section 340B(a)(5)(A) prohibits a covered entity from requesting Medicaid reimbursement from a drug that has been discounted under the 340B Program. Further, section 340B(a)(5)(B) prohibits a covered entity from reselling or otherwise transferring a discounted drug to a person who is not a patient of the entity.

    Section 340B(a)(5)(C) of the PHS Act permits the Secretary and manufacturers of a covered outpatient drug to conduct audits of covered entities in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary related to the number, duration, and scope of the audits. Manufacturers are permitted to conduct an audit only when there is reasonable cause to believe a violation of section 340B(a)(5)(A) or (B) has occurred. The manufacturer notifies the covered entity in writing when it believes the covered entity has violated these provisions of the 340B Program. If the problem cannot be resolved, the manufacturer will then submit an audit work plan describing the audit and evidence in support of the reasonable cause standard to HRSA, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA) for review. OPA will review the documentation to determine if reasonable cause exists. Once the audit is complete, the manufacturer will submit copies of the audit report to OPA for review and resolution of the findings, as appropriate. The manufacturer will also submit an informational copy of the audit report to the Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

    In response to the statutory mandate of section 340B(a)(5)(C) to permit the Secretary or manufacturers to conduct audits of covered entities and because of the potential for disputes involving covered entities and participating drug manufacturers, OPA developed an informal voluntary dispute resolution process for manufacturers and covered entities who, prior to filing a request for resolution of a dispute with OPA, should attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute. All parties involved in the dispute should maintain written documentation as evidence of a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. To request voluntary dispute resolution of an unresolved dispute, a party submits a written request for a review of the dispute to OPA. A committee appointed to review the documentation will send a letter to the party alleged to have committed a violation. The party will be asked to provide a response to or a rebuttal of the allegations.

    HRSA published a notice in 1996 and a policy release in 2011 on manufacturer audit guidelines and the informal dispute resolution process (61 FR 65406 (December 12, 1996) and “Clarification of Manufacturer Audits of 340B Covered Entities,” Release No. 2011-3).

    The revision to this package includes additional background information on the dispute resolution process and clarifies the need and proposed use of information regarding the manufacturer audit guidelines and the informal dispute resolution process.

    HHS has reviewed all comments submitted in response to the publication of a 60-day Federal Register notice requesting comments on this ICR. Comments submitted included requests for standardized reporting forms. Commenters also expressed concern that burden hours were significantly understated. HHS agrees that the burdens associated with this ICR may have been understated. Adjusted burden estimates are included in this 30-day notice. Finally, HHS appreciates the comments received regarding the development of a formal dispute resolution process. HHS is in the process of developing a regulation to establish and implement a binding administrative dispute resolution process pursuant to section 340(d)(3) of the PHS Act. Some of the comments received regarding the audit process are beyond the scope of this notice, and as such, HHS will not be addressing them in this notice.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: HRSA is proposing the collection of information related to the manufacturer audit guidelines. These guidelines contain the following reporting/notification elements:

    1. Manufacturers should notify the entity in writing when it believes a violation has occurred;

    2. manufacturers should submit documentation to OPA as evidence of good faith of attempts to resolve a dispute;

    3. manufacturers must submit an audit work plan to OPA;

    4. manufacturers should submit the audit report to OPA and informational copies to the HHS OIG; and

    5. the covered entity should provide a written response to the audit report.

    This information is necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of manufacturer audits. In addition, the informal dispute resolution process requires the participating manufacturer or covered entity requesting dispute resolution to provide OPA with a written request. The party alleged to have committed a section 340B violation may provide a response or rebuttal to OPA. This information is necessary to ensure that the dispute will be resolved in a fair and equitable manner.

    Likely Respondents: Drug manufacturers and 340B covered entities.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Audits Good faith Resolution 1 10 1 10 60 600 Audit Notification to Entity 1 10 1 10 6 60 Audit Workplan 1 40 1 18 12 216 Audit Report 1 8 1 8 12 96 Entity Response 8 1 8 12 96 Dispute Resolution Dispute Request 10 4 40 15 600 Rebuttal 10 1 10 28 280 Total 96 104 1948 1 Prepared by the manufacturer.

    Recordkeeping Burden:

    Recordkeeping requirement Number of recordkeepers Hours of
  • recordkeeping
  • Total burden
    Dispute Records 50 1 50
    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11869 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Collaborative Office Rounds AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a class deviation from competition requirements for Maternal and Child Health Collaborative Office Rounds.

    SUMMARY:

    HRSA announces the award of an extension in the amount of $150,000 for the Maternal and Child Health Collaborative Office Rounds (MCH-COR) grants. The purpose of the program is to foster joint pediatrics-child psychiatry continuing education in the psychosocial development aspects of child health, utilizing a study group approach that emphasizes the practical challenges confronted by community based practitioners. The extension will permit recipients to continue activities within the scope of the current award while the program is evaluated, during the budget period of 7/1/2016-6/30/2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rita Maldonado, Division of Maternal Child Health Workforce Development, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18W13A, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: 301.443.3622, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Intended Recipient of the Award: Children's Research Institute, Johns Hopkins University, New York School of Medicine, Regents of the University of Minnesota, The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco. The Regents of the University of Michigan, Trustees of Dartmouth College, University of Illinois, Yale University.

    Amount of Each Non-Competitive Awards: $15,000.

    Period of Supplemental Funding: 7/1/2016-6/30/2017.

    CFDA Number: 93.110 Authority:

    Social Security Act, Title V, Section 502(a)(1)

    Justification: MCHB is requesting a one-time extension to continue activities while the program is evaluated to determine future activities using the COR model. MCHB will evaluate the basic structure of the COR model, identify gaps, and propose possible enhancements to the model.

    Grant recipient/organization name Grant No. State Current project start date Current project end date Revised project end date FY 2015
  • authorized
  • funding level
  • FY 2016
  • estimated
  • funding level
  • CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE T20MC21950 DC 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 $15,000 $15,000 Children's Research Institute T20MC07472 OH 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 15,000 15,000 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY T20MC07464 MD 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 15,000 15,000 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE T20MC21951 NY 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 14,999 14,999 Regents of the University of Minnesota T20MC07469 MN 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 15,000 15,000 The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco T20MC21952 CA 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 15,000 15,000 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN T20MC07463 MI 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 15,000 15,000 TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE T20MC07473 NH 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 15,000 15,000 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS T20MC25634 IL 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 14,859 14,859 YALE UNIVERSITY T20MC21953 CT 7/1/2011 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 15,000 15,000
    Dated: May 13, 2016. James Macrae, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11950 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 16, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11902 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Research for Children—SBIR Topic 86.

    Date: June 8, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Stephanie J. Webb, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0291, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 16, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11900 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Blueprint Contract Review.

    Date: June 14, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Joel A. Saydoff, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; R25's.

    Date: June 20, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jo A. McConnell, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Centers Without Walls for Collaborative Research in Epilepsies SEP.

    Date: June 28-29, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites Alexandria Old Town, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Elizabeth A. Webber, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-1917, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NINDS Diversity R25 Review.

    Date: June 30, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ernest W. Lyons, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-4056, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 16, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11903 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Rapid Assessment of Zika Virus (ZIKV) Complications (R21).

    Date: June 14, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 4H100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jay R. Radke, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G11B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane MSC-9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5046, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 16, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11901 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Intermodal Containers AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final determination.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of a twenty foot long intermodal container. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of origin of the intermodal container is the Republic of Korea for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

    DATES:

    The final determination was issued on May 13, 2016. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within June 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Teresa M. Frazier, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade (202) 325-0139.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain intermodal containers, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H273529, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that the processing in Korea results in a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin of the intermodal container is Korea for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

    Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Myles B. Harmon, Acting Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade. H273529 May 13, 2016 OT:RR:CTF:VS H273529 TMF CATEGORY: Country of Origin Michael G. McManus, Duane Morris LLP, 505 9th Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-2166 Re: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III, Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511); Substantial Transformation; Twenty Foot Intermodal Shipping Containers

    Dear Mr. McManus: This is in response to your correspondence of February 12, 2016, requesting a final determination on behalf of your client, Sea Box, Inc. (“Sea Box”), pursuant to subpart B of part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 et seq.). Under pertinent regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is, or would be, a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purpose of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    This final determination concerns a twenty foot long Sea Box shipping container that is claimed to be a product of the Republic of South Korea or the United States. We note that Sea Box, Inc. is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this determination.

    FACTS:

    Your client requests a country of origin determination concerning a twenty foot long intermodal container. You state that the twenty foot shipping container is a 20 foot, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) compliant container possessing the following external measurements: 19′ 10.5″ in length with a tolerance of +0, −1/4 of an inch; 8.0′ in width with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch; 8.0′ in height with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch. The internal dimensions are: 19′4 11/64″ (L); 7′8 17/32″ (W); 7′4 3/16″(H). The 20 foot container is comprised of corrugated steel sides and roofing which give it a favorable strength to weight ratio; two sets of forklift “pockets” that permit forklifts to lift and move laden or unladen containers; wooden flooring tested to withstand 16,000 lbs. per square foot (144 square inches); 24 top and bottom wall tie down steel lashing rings each having a capacity of 4,000 lbs.; and two vents. The twenty foot containers weigh 5,000 lbs. each and can accommodate a payload of 47,910 lbs.

    You state that your client intends to assemble the containers from parts originating in South Korea, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States. You state three of the four principal components (the right and left sidewalls and the roof) of the twenty foot container will be made in Korea. You state that the container floor is made in China as well as the two container ends, which includes the doors. The U.S. components are prime and finish coatings, decals, tie backs/welding wire, aluminum shot blast media and sealant.

    Manufacturing Process

    You describe Sea Box's manufacturing of the container to be a complex industrial process which takes more than day to complete. You list fourteen manufacturing steps that require the manipulation of large components to form a structurally sound container to its precise size in accordance with ISO specifications.

    You state that the container must be capable of being stacked up to nine units high, with the base of a stack strong enough to support 423,280 static lbs. above it (8 containers × 58,800 lbs. per container). In addition, the container must be able to support a dynamic load taking into account a vessel's motion in conformity with the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). You also advise that the containers must be International Container Safety Convention (CSC) certified and manufactured according to ISO standards.

    You state in order to be CSC certified in the United States, the manufacturer's facility must be pre-approved for manufacturing CSC-certified containers by a testing and certification organization sanctioned by the U.S. Coast Guard. You also state that the manufacturer must design and build prototype containers of the specific kind and type proposed in the specific facility to be certified and then submit them for testing by the approved organization. You note that only after successful completion of these prerequisites will a company be authorized to manufacture and furnish containers to be included in the internationally accepted ISO system of transportation.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the twenty foot intermodal container is considered to be a product of the United States or Korea for U.S. Government procurement purposes.

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country-of-origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is a product of a designated country for the purpose of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions on U.S. Government procurement.

    In rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of Subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations. See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that the Federal Acquisition Regulations restrict the U.S. Government's purchase of products to U.S.-made or designated country end products for acquisitions subject to the Trade Agreements Act. See 48 CFR 25.403(c)(1). The Federal Acquisition Regulations define “U.S.-made end product” as “an article that is mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States or that is substantially transformed in the United States into a new and different article of commerce with name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed.” See 48 CFR 25.003.

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed. See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. Substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940). In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article. See Belcrest Linens v. United States, 6 Ct. Int'l Trade 204, 573 F. Supp. 1149 (1983), aff'd, 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative.

    In Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, the Court of International Trade held that no substantial transformation occurred because the attachment of a footwear upper from Indonesia to its outsole in the United States was a minor manufacturing or combining process which left the identity of the upper intact. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 224, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The court found that the upper was readily recognizable as a distinct item apart from the outsole to which it was attached, it did not lose its identity in the manufacture of the finished shoe in the United States, and the upper did not undergo a physical change or a change in use. Also, under Uniroyal, the change in name from “upper” to “shoe” was not significant. The court concluded that the upper was the essence of the completed shoe, and was not substantially transformed.

    In National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992), aff'd, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the court considered sockets and flex handles which were either cold formed or hot forged into their final shape prior to importation, speeder handles which were reshaped by a power press after importation, and the grip of flex handles which were knurled in the United States. The imported articles were heat treated, cleaned by sandblasting, tumbling, and/or chemical vibration before being electroplated. In certain instances, various components were assembled together which the court stated required some skill and dexterity. The court determined that the imported articles were not substantially transformed and that they remained products of Taiwan. In making its determination, the court focused on the fact that the components had been cold formed or hot forged “into their final shape before importation”, and that “the form of the components remained the same” after the assembly and heat treatment processes performed in the United States.

    It is your position that the country of origin of the intermodal containers is South Korea because three of the container's components (the roof and two side panels), like National Hand Tool and Uniroyal, impart the container's essential character because they are already formed in the final shape prior to importation into the United States. You also state that the three Korean components—the roof and side panels predominate in value since they cost more than the Chinese components (front end, door end and floor). In sum, you argue that the country of origin is South Korea, or in the alternative, the United States.

    In HQ 555111, dated March 14, 1989, CBP determined that shearing steel sheets to size, along with bending, notching or drilling of the sheared pieces constituted a substantial transformation, such that the container parts were different in character and use from the originally imported steel sheets. It was also determined that the container parts were distinct articles of commerce that were bought and sold in the trade. CBP also found a second substantial transformation occurred when the container parts were assembled into finished steel storage containers. It was also determined that the container parts were distinct articles of commerce that were bought and sold in the trade. CBP found that the assembly was complex, involving a large number of components and a significant number of different operations, requiring a relatively significant period of time as well as skill, attention to detail and quality control.

    In HQ 557607, dated December 18, 1993, CBP determined that steel plates imported into Mexico and used in the production of certain railway freight cars (referred therein as “railcar tanks”) underwent a double substantial transformation. The steel plates were sandblasted to remove any foreign debris and particles; cut to same length and width in varying sizes; rolled and cold-formed into cylindrical or near-cylindrical shape; tack-welded to hold their shape with seams, then permanently welded using a design-specific welding fixture. Thereafter, the rings were permanently welded in place; and holes were cut into the tank shell in accordance with design specifications for the placement of miscellaneous parts that were also permanently welded. The seams were then subject to X-ray analysis to ensure against any defects, followed by painting with rust-resistant paint primer. CBP determined that the welding and complex assembling of the steel container parts resulted in a new, finished and different article of commerce possessing a distinct name, character and use.

    We find that the essential character of the container is imparted by the Korean-origin roof, and two side panels, which, as in National Hand Tool, are already formed in their final shapes prior to importation. Further, the twenty foot containers are similar to the final goods discussed in HQ 555111 and HQ 567607. While these two decisions pertained to the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), and the GSP often considers whether the second substantial transformation is not just a “pass-through” operation, we note that in those two decisions it was important that the components were formed and created in the final country of assembly. Similarly, in this case we find that the Sea Box container will mostly be comprised of components from Korea, especially when comparing these components to the container's finished surface area, such that the origin of the finished container may be considered Korea. As noted in our ruling to you, HQ H267876, dated December 23, 2015, the operations in the United States are not sufficient to result in a substantial transformation; therefore, we find that the country of origin of the finished twenty foot intermodal containers will be Korea for government procurement purposes.

    HOLDING:

    Based upon the specific facts of this case, we find that the country of origin of the intermodal containers for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Korea.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Acting Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11947 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022] Technical Mapping Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet via conference call on June 6 and 7, 2016. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The TMAC will meet via conference call on Monday, June 6, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and on Tuesday, June 7, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    For information on how to access to the conference call, information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance for the meeting, contact the person listed in For Further Information Contact below as soon as possible. Members of the public who wish to dial in for the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to [email protected] (attention Kathleen Boyer) by 11 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, June 1, 2016.

    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the Supplementary Information section below. The Agenda and other associated material will be available for review at www.fema.gov/TMAC by Monday, May 30, 2016. Written comments to be considered by the committee at the time of the meeting must be received by Thursday, June 2, 2016, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Address the email TO: [email protected] and CC: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the email.

    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Federal Emergency Management Agency” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.

    A public comment period will be held on June 6, 2016, from 11:00-11:20 a.m. and June 7, 2016 from 11:00-11:20 a.m. EDT. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than two minutes. Each public comment period will not exceed 20 minutes. Please note that the public comment periods may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business on Thursday, June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen Boyer, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street Arlington, VA 22202, telephone (202) 646-4023, and email [email protected] The TMAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.

    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1) How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5)(a) methods for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an Annual Report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.

    Further, in accordance with the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, the TMAC must develop a review report related to flood mapping in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    Agenda: On June 6 and 7, 2016, the TMAC will debate and vote on the final content of the 2016 FEMA flood mapping program review report (Review Report). The Review Report evaluates the FEMA National Flood Mapping Program as required by the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. In addition, the TMAC will continue to discuss draft recommendations for the required 2016 TMAC Annual Report. A public comment period will take place at the beginning of the meeting at 11:00 a.m. EDT each day, and another brief public comment period will also be offered prior to any Council vote. A more detailed agenda will be posted by May 30, 2016, at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator, for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11960 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0095] Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I-290B; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0095 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0027. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2008-0027;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0027 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; Reinstatement.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Notice of Appeal or Motion.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-290B; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households, employers, private entities and organizations, businesses, non-profit institutions/organizations, and attorneys. Form I-290B is necessary in order for USCIS to make a determination that the appeal or motion to reopen or reconsider meets the eligibility requirements, and for USCIS to adjudicate the merits of the appeal or motion to reopen or reconsider.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-290B is 22,062 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 33,093 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $2,785,573.

    Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11883 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0124] Agency Information Collection Activities: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, FormI-821D; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2016, at 81 FR 11289, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS received comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 20, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] Comments may also be submitted via fax at (202) 395-5806 (This is not a toll-free number). All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0124.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2012 -0012 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-821D; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or Households. The information collected on this form is used by USCIS to determine eligibility of certain individuals who were brought to the United States as children and meet the following guidelines to be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals:

    1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

    2. Came to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday, and established residence at that time;

    3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

    4. Were present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;

    5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or their lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

    6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and

    7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

    These individuals will be considered for relief from removal from the United States or from being placed into removal proceedings as part of the deferred action for childhood arrivals process. Those who submit requests with USCIS and demonstrate that they meet the threshold guidelines may have removal action in their case deferred for a period of two years, subject to renewal (if not terminated), based on an individualized, case by case assessment of the individual's equities. Only those individuals who can demonstrate, through verifiable documentation, that they meet the threshold guidelines will be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals, except in exceptional circumstances.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 58,314 respondents res