Federal Register Vol. 81, No.99,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 99 (May 23, 2016)

Page Range32227-32615
FR Document

81_FR_99
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 32611 - A Comprehensive Approach to Atrocity Prevention and ResponsePDF
81 FR 32609 - National Hepatitis Testing Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 32381 - BNSF Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Cook County, IllPDF
81 FR 32319 - Notice of Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 32303 - Meeting of the U.S. Air Force Academy Board of VisitorsPDF
81 FR 32348 - Office of Procurement; Public Availability of NASA FY 2015 Service Contract InventoryPDF
81 FR 32383 - Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016 Passenger Ferry Grant Program Project SelectionsPDF
81 FR 32385 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 32385 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2001-21PDF
81 FR 32383 - Forty-Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206 (SC-206) Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link ServicesPDF
81 FR 32382 - Twenty-Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 225 (SC-225) Rechargeable Lithium Battery and Battery SystemsPDF
81 FR 32382 - Ninth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 230 (SC-230) Airborne Weather Detection Systems (Joint With WG-95 Inflight Ice Long Range Awareness Systems' Fourth Meeting)PDF
81 FR 32241 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 31 for Significant New Alternatives Policy ProgramPDF
81 FR 32327 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; EPA Application Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation ActPDF
81 FR 32326 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives-Requirements for ManufacturersPDF
81 FR 32306 - Applications for New Awards; Teacher Quality Partnership Grant ProgramPDF
81 FR 32230 - Federal Firearms License Proceedings-HearingsPDF
81 FR 32259 - Air Quality Control, Reporting, and CompliancePDF
81 FR 32302 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 32347 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Worksite Report and Report of Federal Employment and WagesPDF
81 FR 32342 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of a 5-Year Review of the Eskimo CurlewPDF
81 FR 32304 - National Security Education Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 32249 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35PDF
81 FR 32269 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2016PDF
81 FR 32274 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesPDF
81 FR 32344 - Certain Air Mattress Bed Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 32343 - Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 32306 - Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of VisitorsPDF
81 FR 32277 - Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) for Fiscal Year 2016PDF
81 FR 32286 - Request for Proposals: Farm Labor Housing Technical Assistance GrantsPDF
81 FR 32339 - Notice Announcing the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as the Sole CBP-Authorized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System for Processing Electronic Entry and Entry Summary FilingsPDF
81 FR 32320 - Swanton Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 32320 - American Airlines, Inc. v. Plantation Pipe Line Company; Notice of ComplaintPDF
81 FR 32321 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
81 FR 32322 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Access South, Adair Southwest, and Lebanon Extension Projects and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
81 FR 32294 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 32296 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 32295 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 32381 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 32351 - PSEG Nuclear LLC; Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2PDF
81 FR 32329 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 32355 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 32350 - In the Matter of Luminant Generation Company LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation FacilityPDF
81 FR 32303 - Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 32343 - Minor Boundary Revision at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military ParkPDF
81 FR 32341 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Temporary Protected Status, Form I-821; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 32324 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Nexus Gas Transmission and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease ProjectsPDF
81 FR 32320 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 32325 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 32325 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
81 FR 32335 - Notice of Request for Information by the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant BacteriaPDF
81 FR 32298 - Patent Processing (Updating)PDF
81 FR 32295 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 32296 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 32355 - Containment Shell or Liner Moisture Barrier InspectionPDF
81 FR 32275 - Eastern Arizona Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 32297 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 32349 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Initiate Section 106 Consultation for Proposed Changes to Arecibo Observatory Operations, Arecibo, Puerto Rico and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings and Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 32305 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 32386 - Proposed Information Collection (Notice of Disagreement (NOD) (Pension, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), Burial and Accrued), VA Form 21P-0970); Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 32387 - Proposed Information Collection (Medical Expense Report, VA Form 21P-8416) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 32387 - Proposed Information Collection (Principles of Excellence Complaint System Intake); Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 32376 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 To Permit Listing and Trading of Managed Portfolio Shares and To Permit Listing and Trading of Shares of Fifteen Issues of the Precidian ETFs TrustPDF
81 FR 32258 - Banned Devices; Proposal To Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices Used To Treat Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 32345 - Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
81 FR 32336 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 32338 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 32346 - Alloy Magnesium From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
81 FR 32328 - Petition of COSCO Container Lines Company Limited for an Exemption From Commission Regulations; Notice of Filing of Request for Extension of TimePDF
81 FR 32347 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard EmploymentPDF
81 FR 32340 - Notice of Public Workshop Regarding the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 ImplementationPDF
81 FR 32360 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 5 to Proposed Rule Change Adopting Initial and Continued Listing Standards for the Listing of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks and Adopting Listing Fees Specific to Equity Investment Tracking StocksPDF
81 FR 32371 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Change to the Underlying Index for the PowerShares Build America Bond PortfolioPDF
81 FR 32364 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the AdvisorShares KIM Korea Equity ETFPDF
81 FR 32356 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 15.1(a) and (c) in Order To Implement a Tape B Quoting TierPDF
81 FR 32359 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 12904 (Awards) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and Rule 13904 (Awards) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes To Permit Award Offsets in ArbitrationPDF
81 FR 32384 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13448, Executive Order 13310, and Executive Order 13464PDF
81 FR 32332 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 32333 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 32330 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 32289 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Subzone 249A; GE Generators (Pensacola) L.L.C.; (Wind Turbine Nacelles and Hubs); Pensacola, FloridaPDF
81 FR 32291 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013PDF
81 FR 32289 - 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; 2007-2008PDF
81 FR 32328 - Submission for OMB Review; Quality Assurance RequirementsPDF
81 FR 32260 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance PlanPDF
81 FR 32239 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting RequirementsPDF
81 FR 32235 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance PlanPDF
81 FR 32229 - Heavy Vehicle Use Tax; Technical CorrectionPDF
81 FR 32319 - President's Council of Advisors on Science and TechnologyPDF
81 FR 32227 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
81 FR 32554 - Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant ProgramsPDF
81 FR 32268 - United States Rail Service Issues-Performance Data ReportingPDF
81 FR 32274 - Prince of Wales Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 32276 - Prince of Wales Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 32275 - Prince of Wales Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 32276 - Tri-County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 32391 - Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer EmployeesPDF
81 FR 32390 - Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees; Announcement of Time-Limited Non-Enforcement Policy for Providers of Medicaid-Funded Services for Individuals With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities in Residential Homes and Facilities With 15 or Fewer BedsPDF
81 FR 32261 - National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Financial Assistance/Subsidy ArrangementPDF
81 FR 32256 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF

Issue

81 99 Monday, May 23, 2016 Contents Administrative Administrative Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 32274 2016-12075 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Rural Housing Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S Air Force Academy Board of Visitors; Withdrawal, 32303 2016-12145 Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau RULES Federal Firearms License Proceedings; Hearings, 32230-32235 2016-12100 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32302-32303 2016-12081 2016-12082 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32329-32335 2016-12008 2016-12009 2016-12010 2016-12053 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32305-32306 2016-12035 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Quality Assurance Requirements, 32328-32329 2016-12002 Meetings: National Security Education Board, 32304-32305 2016-12078 Reserve Forces Policy Board, 32303-32304 2016-12050
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program, 32306-32319 2016-12101 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32319 2016-12177 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 32319 2016-11959
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements, 32239-32241 2016-11965 New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance Plan, 32235-32239 2016-11963 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 31 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 32241-32249 2016-12117 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance Plan, 32260-32261 2016-11966 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: EPA Application Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, 32327-32328 2016-12106 Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives—Requirements for Manufacturers, 32326-32327 2016-12105 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 32227-32228 2016-11929 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 32256-32258 2016-11681 NOTICES Meetings: RTCA Special Committee 206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services, 32383 2016-12126 RTCA Special Committee 225 Rechargeable Lithium Battery and Battery Systems, 32382-32383 2016-12125 RTCA Special Committee 230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems; Joint with WG-95 Inflight Ice Long Range Awareness Systems, 32382 2016-12124 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency PROPOSED RULES National Flood Insurance Program: Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement, 32261-32268 2016-11701 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 2016-12045 32320-32321, 32325 2016-12046 Complaints: American Airlines, Inc., v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., 32320 2016-12064 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Access South, Adair Southwest, and Lebanon Extension Projects, 32322-32324 2016-12062 Environmental Reviews NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Appalachian Lease Projects, 32324 2016-12047 Preliminary Permit Applications: Swanton Hydro, LLC, 32320 2016-12065 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 32325-32326 2016-12044 Staff Attendances, 32321 2016-12063 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration RULES Heavy Vehicle Use Tax; Technical Correction, 32229-32230 2016-11961 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Request for Extension of Time: COSCO Container Lines Co. Ltd., 32328 2016-12020 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016 Passenger Ferry Grant Program Project Selections, 32383-32384 2016-12143 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Initiation of a 5-Year Review of the Eskimo Curlew, 32342-32343 2016-12079 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Banned Devices: Proposal to Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices Used to Treat Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior, 32258-32259 2016-12026 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 32384-32385 2016-12011 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activity Authorizations: GE Generators LLC, Foreign-Trade Subzone 249A, Pensacola, FL, 32289 2016-12007 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Eastern Arizona Resource Advisory Committee, 32275-32276 2016-12038 Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee, 2016-11794 32274-32277 2016-11795 2016-11796 Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee, 32276 2016-11792 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Quality Assurance Requirements, 32328-32329 2016-12002 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Requests for Information: Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, 32335-32336 2016-12043
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Meetings: Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 Implementation Public Workshop, 32340-32341 2016-12018
Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32385-32386 2016-12131 2016-12132 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration 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, 32289-32291 2016-12004 Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China, 32291-32294 2016-12005 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Alloy Magnesium From China; Five Year Review, 32346 2016-12021 Certain Air Mattress Bed Systems and Components Thereof, 32344-32345 2016-12074 Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, 32343-32344 2016-12073 Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from China; Five Year Review, 32345-32346 2016-12024 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

Labor Department Labor Department See

Wage and Hour Division

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Multiple Worksite Report and Report of Federal Employment and Wages, 32347-32348 2016-12080 Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment, 32347 2016-12019
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Quality Assurance Requirements, 32328-32329 2016-12002 Fiscal Year 2015 Service Contract Inventory, 32348 2016-12144 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs, 32554-32605 2016-11819 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 32336-32339 2016-12022 2016-12023 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35, 32249-32255 2016-12077 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2016, 32269-32273 2016-12076 NOTICES Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review; Webinar, 32294-32295 2016-12061 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 32297-32298 2016-12037 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 32296 2016-12040 New England Fishery Management Council, 2016-12059 32295-32297 2016-12060 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 32295-32296 2016-12041 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Minor Boundary Revisions: Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park, 32343 2016-12049 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Changes to Arecibo Observatory Operations, Arecibo, PR, 32349-32350 2016-12036 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors, 32306 2016-12071 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Direct and Indirect Transfer of Licenses: Luminant Generation Co. LLC, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Facility, 32350-32351 2016-12051 Guidance: Containment Shell or Liner Moisture Barrier Inspection, 32355-32356 2016-12039 License Amendment Applications: PSEG Nuclear LLC, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 32351-32355 2016-12054 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 32355 2016-12052 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau PROPOSED RULES Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance, 32259-32260 2016-12099 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Patent Processing, 32298-32302 2016-12042 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Hepatitis Testing Day (Proc. 9450), 32607-32610 2016-12306 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Atrocity Prevention and Response; Comprehensive Approach (EO 13729), 32611-32615 2016-12307 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Rural Community Development Initiative for Fiscal Year 2016, 32277-32286 2016-12070 Request for Proposals: Farm Labor Housing Technical Assistance Grants, 32286-32289 2016-12068 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 32356-32358 2016-12013 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 32359-32360 2016-12012 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 32360-32364 2016-12017 NYSE Arca, Inc., 32364-32381 2016-12014 2016-12016 2016-12028 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma; Correction, 32381 2016-12055 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES United States Rail Service Issues—Performance Data Reporting; Correction, 32268-32269 2016-11805 NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: BNSF Railway Co. in Cook County, IL, 32381-32382 2016-12194 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Temporary Protected Status, 32341-32342 2016-12048 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Processing of Electronic Entry and Entry Summary Filings: Sole CBP-Authorized Electronic Data Interchange System: Automated Commercial Environment, 32339-32340 2016-12067 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Medical Expense Report, 32387 2016-12032 Notice of Disagreement Pension, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Burial and Accrued, 32386-32387 2016-12033 Principles of Excellence Complaint System Intake, 32387-32388 2016-12031 Wage Wage and Hour Division RULES Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees, 32391-32552 2016-11754 Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees; Announcement of Time-Limited Non-Enforcement Policy for Providers of Medicaid-Funded Services for Individuals with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities in Residential Homes and Facilities with 15 or Fewer Beds, 32390-32391 2016-11753 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Labor Department, Wage and Hour Division, 32390-32552 2016-11754 2016-11753 Part III Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 32554-32605 2016-11819 Part IV Presidential Documents, 32607-32615 2016-12306 2016-12307 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 99 Monday, May 23, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8426; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-006-AD; Amendment 39-18527; AD 2016-10-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, FALCON 900EX airplanes, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that during a test flight, it was found that the yaw damper on the takeoff roll can increase the Minimum Control Speed on Ground (Vmcg). This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to incorporate procedures for the flightcrew to check that the yaw damper is set to “off” before takeoff. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to set the yaw damper to “off” before takeoff, which, if activated, could result in reduced control of the airplane if one engine were to fail during takeoff.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: 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-2015-8426; 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:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

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 Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, FALCON 900EX airplanes, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1580) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0005, dated January 14, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, FALCON 900EX airplanes, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

During a flight test on a development aeroplane, it was found that the yaw damper (YD) working on the take-off roll can increase the Minimum Control Speed on Ground (Vmcg). A review of the certification data of the affected aeroplanes shows that Vmcg values published in the Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM) have been determined without YD.

This condition, if not corrected, could result, in case of an engine failure occurring during the roll acceleration [during takeoff], in reduced lateral control of the aeroplane.

To address this condition, Dassault Aviation developed Change Proposals (CP) and Temporary Changes (TC) to the applicable AFMs, which instruct flight crews to check that yaw damper is set to “off” before take-off.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an amendment of the applicable AFM.

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-2015-8426. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM 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 NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

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

Change to Paragraph (g) of This AD

We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to remove “table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD” regarding the use of the applicable AFM change. This change is necessary because the AFM materials specified in the proposed AD do not meet the requirements for approval of incorporation by reference by the Office of the Federal Register. Therefore, operators must contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, for information regarding the use of the applicable AFM change for revising the normal procedures and limitations sections of the AFM, as applicable, to include new yaw damper procedures.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 284 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $24,140, or $85 per product.

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): 2016-10-16 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18527. Docket No. FAA-2015-8426; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-006-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective June 27, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.

(1) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, all serial numbers.

(2) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, all serial numbers, except airplanes with “EASy II” “2nd certification” avionics, which are defined as: Airplanes modified in production with Dassault Aviation modification M5595; or airplanes modified in service with Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-400 or with Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, except for airplanes modified in service with any of the service information specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vii) of this AD.

(i) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-400, dated July 1, 2011.

(ii) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-400, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2012.

(iii) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-400, Revision 2, dated November 30, 2012.

(iv) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, dated July 20, 2011.

(v) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, Revision 1, dated July 5, 2012.

(vi) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, Revision 2, dated July 27, 2012.

(vii) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-414, Revision 3, dated November 30, 2012.

(3) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, all serial numbers, except airplanes with Dassault Aviation production modification M3254, or modified in service by Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000EX-300 (“EASy II” avionics).

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 01, Operations Information.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report that during a test flight, it was found that the yaw damper on the takeoff roll can increase the Minimum Control Speed on Ground (Vmcg). We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to set the yaw damper to “off” before takeoff, which, if activated, could result in reduced control of the airplane if one engine were to fail during takeoff.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the normal procedures and limitations sections of the AFM, as applicable, to include new yaw damper procedures, in accordance with using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA.

(h) 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; 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 Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0005, dated January 14, 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-2015-8426-0002.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

None.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2016. Suzanne Masterson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11929 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 669 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2016-0004] RIN 2125-AF71 Heavy Vehicle Use Tax; Technical Correction AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule makes a technical correction to the regulations that govern the enforcement of the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax. The amendments contained herein make no substantive changes to FHWA regulations, policies, or procedures. The current regulation references a section of the United States Code that was later amended by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).

DATES:

This rule is effective June 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Dougherty, Office of Highway Policy Information, telephone 202-366-9234 or email at [email protected]; or William Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-1397 or email at [email protected] Both are located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours for FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov or the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara.

Background

This rulemaking makes technical corrections to the regulations that govern policies and procedures relating to the enforcement of the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax found at 23 CFR part 669. In the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43409), FHWA referenced 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(4) in 23 CFR 669.13 and 669.19, which at that time governed the effect of failure to certify or to adequately obtain proof-of-payment and the reservation and reapportionment of funds. Section 1404(d)(2) of MAP-21 (PL 112-141), enacted in 2012, amended that section and inserted revised language governing the Heavy Vehicle Use Tax at 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1). As a result of the language in MAP-21, the penalty for States for non-compliance with the proof of payment requirements of the Federal Heavy Vehicle Use Tax at the time of State registration was amended. The penalty computation was amended by statute to eight percent of the amount apportioned in any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1984 (23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1)) as was reference to the amended portion of the statute at section 104(b)(1).

However, the regulations in 23 CFR part 669 have several references to the old statute at 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(4) and also suggest the penalty is 25 percent rather than 8 percent. As such, references in 23 CFR 669.13 and 669.19 to 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(4) cause confusion. These amendments will direct readers of 23 CFR 669 to the proper section of 23 U.S.C.

Finally, the authority citation for part 669 will be updated to reflect ministerial changes in the numbering of FHWA delegations of authority made with the publication of the final rule on Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties on August 17, 2012 (77 FR 49964, 49981). The current regulation cites authority contained in 49 CFR 1.48. The location of those sections describing delegations to the Federal Highway Administrator are now found at 49 CFR 1.85.

The 2012 change in location within the CFR is ministerial in nature and pertains to DOT management and organization. Amendment of the section identifying the authority for part 669 will direct readers to the proper section of 49 CFR.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notice

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The FHWA finds that notice and comment for this rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because it will have no substantive impact, is technical in nature, and relates only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. The amendments to the rule are based upon the explicit language of statutes that were enacted subsequent to the promulgation of the rule. The FHWA does not anticipate receiving meaningful comments on it. State and local governments rely upon the regulations corrected by this action. These corrections will reduce confusion for these entities and should not be unnecessarily delayed. Accordingly, for the reasons listed above, FHWA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive notice and opportunity for comment.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Orders 12866 or significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. This action complies with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to improve regulation. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. This final rule only makes minor corrections that will not alter the regulatory effect of 23 CFR 669. Thus, the final rule will not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will not make any substantive changes to our regulations or in the way that our regulations affect small entities; it merely corrects technical errors. For this reason, FHWA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This final rule does not impose any requirements on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector and, thus, will not require those entities to expend any funds.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this final rule does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to these programs.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not create any new information collection requirements for which submission to the Office of Management and Budget would be needed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

National Environmental Policy Act

The FHWA has analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

The FHWA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13175. The FHWA concluded that the final rule will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal government; and will not preempt tribal law. There are no requirements set forth in the final rule that directly affect one or more Indian tribes. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

Under Executive Order 13045 this final rule is not economically significant and does not involve an environmental risk to health and safety that may disproportionally affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

This final rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

This final rule has been analyzed under Executive Order 13211. The FHWA has determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and this final rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RINs contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 669

Excise taxes, Grant programs-transportation, Highways and roads, Motor vehicles.

Issued on: May 13, 2016. Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

In consideration of the foregoing, 23 CFR part 669 is amended as set forth below.

PART 669—ENFORCEMENT OF HEAVY VEHICLE USE TAX 1. Revise the authority citation for part 699 to read as follows: Authority:

23 U.S.C. 141(c) and 315; 49 CFR 1.85.

2. Revise § 669.13 to read as follows:
§ 669.13 Effect of failure to certify or to adequately obtain proof-of-payment.

If a State fails to certify as required by this regulation or if the Secretary of Transportation determines that a State is not adequately obtaining proof-of-payment of the heavy vehicle use tax as a condition of registration notwithstanding the State's certification, Federal-aid highway funds apportioned to the State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) for the next fiscal year shall be reduced in an amount up to 8 percent as determined by the Secretary.

3. Amend § 669.19 by revising paragraph (a) and the first sentence of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 669.19 Reservation and reapportionment of funds.

(a) The Administrator may reserve from obligation up to 8 percent of a State's apportionment of funds under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), pending a final determination.

(b) Funds withheld pursuant to a final administrative determination under this regulation shall be reapportioned to all other eligible States pursuant to the formulas of 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1) and the apportionment factors in effect at the time of the original apportionments, unless the Secretary determines, on the basis of information submitted by the State, that the state has come into conformity with this regulation prior to the final determination. * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-11961 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 27 CFR Part 478 [Docket No. ATF 2008R-15P; AG Order No. 3670-2016] RIN 1140-AA38 Federal Firearms License Proceedings—Hearings AGENCY:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding administrative hearings held as part of firearms license proceedings. This rule clarifies that persons requesting a hearing will be afforded the opportunity to submit facts and arguments for review and consideration during the hearing, and may make offers of settlement before or after the hearing. The regulations are intended to ensure that Federal firearms licensees and persons applying for a Federal firearms license are familiar with the hearing process relative to the denial, suspension, or revocation of a firearms license, or imposition of a civil fine.

DATES:

This rule is effective July 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shermaine Kenner, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the Act), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44. She has delegated that responsibility to the Director of ATF (Director), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. 28 CFR 0.130(a). ATF has promulgated regulations that implement the Act in 27 CFR part 478.

The regulations in subpart E of part 478, §§ 478.71-478.78, relate to proceedings involving Federal firearms licenses, including the denial, suspension, or revocation of a license, or the imposition of a civil fine. In particular, § 478.71 provides that the Director may issue a notice of denial, ATF Form 4498, to an applicant for a license if he has reason to believe that the applicant is not qualified, under the provisions of § 478.47, to receive a license. The notice sets forth the matters of fact and law relied upon in determining that the application should be denied, and affords the applicant 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice in which to request a hearing to review the denial. If a request for a hearing is not filed within such time, the application is disapproved and a copy, so marked, is returned to the applicant.

Under § 478.72, an applicant who has been denied an original or renewal license may file a request with the Director of Industry Operations for a hearing to review the denial of the application. On conclusion of the hearing and after consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the applicant or his representative, the Director renders a decision confirming or reversing the denial of the application. If the decision is that the denial should stand, a certified copy of the Director's findings and conclusions is furnished to the applicant with a final notice of denial, ATF Form 5300.13.1 In addition, a copy of the application, marked “Disapproved,” is returned to the applicant. If the decision is that the license applied for should be issued, the applicant is so notified, in writing, and the license is issued.

1 ATF Form 5300.13 was previously referred to as ATF Form 4501.

Section 478.73 provides that whenever the Director has reason to believe that a firearms licensee has willfully violated any provision of the Act or part 478, a notice of revocation of the license, ATF Form 4500, may be issued. In addition, a notice of revocation, suspension, or imposition of a civil fine may be issued on ATF Form 4500 whenever the Director has reason to believe that a licensee has knowingly transferred a firearm to an unlicensed person and knowingly failed to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1) (relating to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check) with respect to the transfer and, at the time that the transferee most recently proposed the transfer, the NICS was operating and information was available to the system demonstrating that the transferee's receipt of a firearm would violate 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or 922(n) or State law. Additionally a notice of suspension or revocation of a license, or the imposition of a civil penalty, may be issued whenever the Director has reason to believe that a licensee has violated § 922(z)(1) by selling, delivering, or transferring any handgun to any person other than a licensee unless the transferee was provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun.

As specified in 27 CFR 478.74, a licensee who has received a notice of license suspension or revocation of a license, or imposition of a civil fine, may, within 15 days of receipt, file a request for a hearing with the Director of Industry Operations. On conclusion of the hearing and after consideration of all the relevant presentations made at the hearing, the Director renders a decision and prepares a brief summary of the findings and conclusions on which the decision is based. If the decision is that the license should be revoked or, in actions under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5) or 924(p)(1), that the license should be revoked or suspended, or that a civil fine should be imposed, a certified copy of the summary is furnished to the licensee with the final notice of revocation, suspension, or imposition of a civil fine on ATF Form 5300.13. If the decision is that the license should not be revoked, or in actions under §§ 922(t)(5) or 924(p)(1), that the license should not be revoked or suspended, and a civil fine should not be imposed, the licensee is notified in writing.

Under 27 CFR 478.76, a firearms licensee or an applicant for a firearms license may be represented at a hearing by an attorney, certified public accountant, or other person recognized to practice before ATF, provided certain requirements are met. The Director may be represented in hearing proceedings by an authorized attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel. Pursuant to § 478.77, hearings concerning license denials, suspensions, or revocations, or the imposition of a civil fine, must be held in a location convenient to the aggrieved party.

In addition, ATF has published in the Federal Register its procedures regarding administrative hearings held as part of firearms license proceedings. See ATF 36N, 75 FR 48362, Aug. 10, 2010.

II. Proposed Rule—Clarification of Hearing Proceedings

On February 3, 2012, ATF published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) amending the regulations in subpart E of part 478, sections 478.71-478.78 (Notice No. 32P, 77 FR 5460). The proposed regulations were intended to ensure that Federal firearms licensees and applicants for a Federal firearms license are familiar with the hearing process relative to the denial, suspension, or revocation of a firearms license, or imposition of a civil fine.

Specifically, the NPRM proposed to add language stating that a hearing would be informal and that a licensee or applicant would have the opportunity to submit facts, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment for review and consideration as part of the hearing process. While the opportunity for a licensee or applicant to submit additional material for review and consideration has always been afforded to such parties since the enactment of the Act, this clarification of the regulations was intended to ensure that all parties involved in firearms license administrative hearings are fully aware of these opportunities.

The comment period for Notice No. 32P closed on May 3, 2012.

III. Summary of Comments

All public comments were considered in preparing this final rule. In response to Notice No. 32P, ATF received ten comments. Five of the commenters agreed with the proposed rule. Commenters who agreed with the proposed rule primarily did so because they believed that implementation of the rule would clarify the opportunities available to an applicant or licensee requesting a hearing in response to a notice of the denial, revocation, or suspension of a firearms license, or imposition of a civil fine. Commenters who disagreed with the proposed rule did so for a variety of reasons, with the most common objection relating to the proposed addition of the term “informal” as applied to firearms license administrative hearings.

General Comments on the Proposed Rule

One commenter stated that the proposed rule should better clarify what conduct can lead to a revocation, denial, or suspension of a Federal firearms license so that a person applying for a license can be on notice of the possibilities before taking the steps to get the license. Existing regulations in part 478, however, already specify which actions and violations by a licensee or applicant may lead to a license denial, revocation, or suspension, or imposition of a civil fine. Therefore, clarification of this matter is not needed.

One commenter stated, “[i]n order to ensure that Federal firearms licensees and applicants for a Federal firearms license are familiar with the hearing process relative to the denial, suspension, or revocation of a firearms license, or imposition of a civil fine, the information regarding the process and procedures for the denial hearing should be included in the Director of Industry Operation's report that is sent to the applicant or licensee.” ATF already follows this practice: The notice of denial, revocation, suspension, or imposition of a civil fine includes information concerning specific procedures on how to request a hearing, a citation to the applicable regulations, and a pamphlet on the hearing process. In addition, information regarding the hearing process as well as what is required from an applicant or licensee can be found in §§ 478.72 and 478.74, and the hearing procedures were published by ATF in the Federal Register on August 10, 2010 (ATF 36N, 75 FR 48362). Accordingly, there is no need to change the language of this regulation to address the commenter's concern.

One commenter argued that this proposed rule will likely cause crime to rise by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to have access to firearms. The same commenter stated that penalties for violations where the Director has reason to believe that a licensee has knowingly transferred a firearm to an unlicensed person and knowingly failed to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(l) should be strengthened. Regarding the commenter's first assertion, this rule will not have any negative effect on the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms. If anything, this rule will benefit licensees or applicants requesting hearings by informing them of their option to submit material that may mitigate or reverse ATF's decision to revoke, suspend, or deny an application for a Federal firearms license. Concerning the commenter's second assertion, strengthening the penalties in § 922(t)(5) for violations of § 922(t)(1) is a matter for Congress, and cannot be addressed by ATF in this rulemaking. The Department notes that the amounts of civil fines and civil penalties as set forth in various Federal statutes are subject to being increased, by regulation, to account for inflation, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. That is a matter to be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

Two commenters expressed concern that the 15-day period in which to file the request for an administrative hearing under 27 CFR 478.72 to review the denial of a license, or under § 478.74 to review the revocation or suspension of a license, or the imposition of a civil fine, is too short. One commenter suggested the response period should be extended to one month from the date the applicant or licensee receives a notice of the denial, revocation, or suspension of a Federal firearms license, or imposition of a civil fine. The second commenter suggested the response period should be extended to 45 days from receipt of such notice. Both commenters argued the additional time would provide licensees and applicants with a more reasonable amount of time to respond to the notice. ATF is unaware of any evidence demonstrating that the 15-day period, which has been in place for many years, is not ample time to request a hearing.2 Moreover, if sufficient good cause is shown, the Director of Industry Operations may extend the time limit in individual cases pursuant to 27 CFR 478.22(a). Furthermore, the NPRM did not propose to change the 15-day period and the Department does not believe a change in the time period is necessary. However, the issue of notice as it pertains to firearms license administrative hearings may be addressed in a separate rulemaking, if necessary.

2 The notice does not require that an applicant or licensee submit supporting facts, arguments, or evidence along with the request for a hearing within the 15-day period. Instead, the hearing notice merely requires a response from the applicant or licensee stating the request for an administrative hearing.

One commenter who supported the proposed rule suggested that ATF create a “database that ensures those who get licenses also have a photo that attaches the license and the serial number of that firearm together.” Although novel, this suggestion is not responsive to this rulemaking's request for comments regarding administrative hearings for Federal firearms licensees.

One commenter provided four comments regarding the implementation of the proposed rule. First, the commenter argued that the current “informal” hearing is only as informal as it suits ATF Counsel. Second, the commenter argued, “ATF Executives previously attempted at least the appearance of fairness in its administrative licensing proceedings by promulgating and adopting guidelines—known as the Administrative Action Order (`AAO')—which required uniformity in the handling and outcomes of ATF administrative matters, yet the AAO is ignored by ATF Counsel.” Third, the commenter argued, “[t]he false confidence generated by a system that `stacks the deck' for one-sided adjudication in ATF's favor fosters unnecessary hostility with the industry, while obstructing bona fide ATF decision-makers from entertaining or implementing common sense solutions.” Finally, the commenter argued, “[n]on-communication among ATF personnel in key positions manifests itself in situations that compromise the entire bureau's integrity and reputation, not just the integrity and reputations of individual or isolated actors, and alienates the regulated environment.”

The issues presented by the commenter, while substantive and related to the firearms license administrative hearings process, generally address a separate issue of how cases are adjudicated. First, as will be discussed further below, the Department has decided to remove the word “informal” from the regulatory text of the final rule. Second, ATF procedures are implemented to provide fairness and uniformity to all participants. Furthermore, as noted above, ATF provides a pamphlet on the hearing process with each notice, and has published a public notice of Hearing Procedures Relating to Federal Firearms Licensees, 75 FR 48362, to provide guidance on the process. Third, the regulations do not prevent common-sense solutions, but instead permit parties to make offers of settlement for review and consideration before or after the hearing. The final rule clarifies that offers of settlement will not be entertained at the hearing because the hearing is not a settlement conference but an opportunity to establish the factual record. Fourth, communication between ATF personnel is an integral part of this process, and ATF disagrees with the commenter's assertion that ATF personnel do not communicate with one another.

One commenter suggested further amendments to the proposed rule by adding and emphasizing the word “informal” in additional sections not amended in the proposed rule, including the second sentence in 27 CFR 478.71 and the section title of § 478.72. As will be discussed further below, however, the Department has decided to remove the word “informal” from the regulatory text of the final rule.

Comments on Specific Sections of the Proposed Rule

Several comments sought additional clarification of or suggested substantive changes to the proposed rule. Four commenters expressed concern that the use of the term “informal” as applied to firearms administrative license proceedings required further clarification. Additionally, one commenter argued that the proposed rule would be contrary to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Informal Hearings

As discussed in Section II of this preamble, the NPRM included language proposing to amend the regulations in subpart E of part 478 to clarify that firearms license administrative hearings are informal in nature and that adherence to civil court rules and procedures is consequently not required. See 77 FR at 5461. Some of the commenters expressed concern over the use of the term “informal,” arguing that it needed further clarification. Some of these commenters asked specifically what rules and procedures would be used in “informal” hearings, as well as whether and how “informal” proceedings would be recorded.

One commenter expressed support for the rule, but expressed the following concerns about the clarity of the term “informal”:

This notice states that the hearings are to be informal in nature, however further clarification is needed here I believe. How informal exactly? Will there be a record of the proceedings in the event that the decision is appealed and how would that be handled? If adherence to civil court rules and procedure is not required, then what type of rules and procedure will be required and implemented? I think there needs to be a little more detailed description of what type of process the person who requests a hearing will go through when the person is submitting their facts and arguments.

Additionally, one commenter who opposed the rule argued, “[t]o suggest that an ATF administrative hearing—as currently constituted—is `informal' in any way is an unfettered mischaracterization.”

As the NPRM explained, the proposed rule would not change any of the procedures or rules that govern the administrative hearings provided for in §§ 478.72 and 478.74, but would merely clarify for the benefit of the licensee or applicant the opportunities afforded to the individual requesting such a hearing. In addition, ATF's published explanation of its hearing procedures already states that “[h]earing procedures in firearms licensing matters are informal in nature.” 75 FR at 48363. Nonetheless, it is clear from the response of commenters both supporting and opposing the rule that the proposal to characterize firearms administrative hearings as “informal” in this rule would not provide additional clarification to a licensee or applicant seeking such a hearing, as was the original intent of the proposed rule.

As a result of these comments, and in light of the intent to clarify as expressed in the proposed rule, the Department is modifying the final rule so that it will no longer insert the phrase “the hearing shall be informal” into the regulatory text. So modified, the final rule will inform the licensee or applicant of the option to submit supporting material for consideration during a requested firearms license administrative hearing without stating or implying that the nature of those hearings will otherwise change.

The Administrative Procedure Act

One commenter argued that the inclusion of the term “informal” in the proposed rule is directly contrary to what Congress intended for license hearings under 18 U.S.C. 923(f)(2), and that Congress intended all firearms license proceedings to be subject to the formal adjudication requirements of the APA. The commenter concluded, “[t]he Administrative Procedure Act [under 5 U.S.C. 556(d)] requires that the hearings be formal proceedings where the agency has the burden of proof, where the evidence offered must be reliable, probative, and substantial, and where the applicant may present evidence and conduct cross-examination of the agency's witnesses.”

Although the provisions of the APA generally apply to firearms license administrative hearings, ATF disagrees with the conclusion that the APA's formal adjudication provisions are applicable to firearms license administrative proceedings. Under 5 U.S.C. 554(a), the formal adjudication provisions of the APA (sections 554, 556, and 557) apply “in every case of an adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.” 5 U.S.C. 554(a). In order to trigger this requirement, courts have held, a statute generally must state that an agency shall provide a “hearing on the record,” rather than just a “hearing.” R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. United States, 765 F.2d 221, 227 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the APA's formal adjudication provisions do not apply “to the extent that there is involved . . . a matter subject to a subsequent trial of the law and the facts de novo in a court.” 5 U.S.C. 554(a)(1).

The Act does not trigger the formal adjudication provisions of the APA with respect to firearms hearings. The pertinent provisions of the Act require the Attorney General to hold “a hearing,” not a hearing “on the record,” in connection with the denial, revocation, or suspension of a license, or imposition of a civil fine. See 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5), 923(f)(2), 924(p)(1). Moreover, 18 U.S.C. 923(f)(3) permits an aggrieved party to, at any time within sixty days after the date notice of a decision is given, “file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides or has his principal place of business for a de novo judicial review of [a license] denial or revocation.” See also 27 CFR 478.78 (authorizing a dissatisfied applicant or licensee to “file a petition for judicial review . . . with the U.S. district court for the district in which the applicant or licensee resides or has his principal place of business”). Accordingly, the APA's formal adjudication procedures do not apply to ATF hearings conducted pursuant to 27 CFR 478.72 and 478.74. See Shaffer v. Holder, No. 1:09-0030, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31415, at *10, 2010 WL 1408829, at *14 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2010).

The commenter also cites APA procedural requirements contained in 5 U.S.C. 556. However, section 556(a) provides as follows: “This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, to hearings required by section 553 or 554 of this title to be conducted in accordance with this section.” Sections 553 or 554 state that the procedural requirements of section 556 apply to rules and adjudications that are “required by statute to be made [or determined] on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.” As discussed above, the Act does not require firearms licensing hearings to be conducted “on the record.”

IV. Final Rule

For the reasons discussed above, this final rule has been revised from the proposed rule to omit any references that characterize hearings concerning the denial, suspension, or revocation of a firearms license, or imposition of a civil fine, as “informal.” In addition, the Department is removing the term “or proposals of adjustment” in the final rule. The term “proposals of adjustment” is redundant when used with “offers of settlement” and is therefore unnecessary. The final rule will also clarify that during the hearing the applicant or licensee will have the opportunity to submit facts and arguments for review and consideration. Offers of settlement may be made before or after the hearing, but will not be entertained at the hearing, as the purpose of the hearing is to establish a factual record.

The Department has also revised sections 478.73 and 478.74 to clarify that those sections apply to actions to revoke or suspend a license, or impose a civil fine, under 18 U.S.C. 924(p). This is a technical change that merely reiterates the requirements of the statute, see 18 U.S.C. 924(p)(1)(A) (stating that applicants are entitled to “notice and opportunity for hearing” in such actions), and codifies ATF's prior interpretation of sections 478.73 and 478.74, see 75 FR at 48362-63.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1, General Principles of Regulation, and section 6, Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules.

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

This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor will it adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities. Similarly, it does not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof, or raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866.

Section 6 of Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to develop a plan to review existing significant rules that may be “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome,” and to make appropriate changes where warranted. The Department selected and reviewed this rule under the criteria set forth in its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, and determined that this final rule merely clarifies that an applicant or licensee requesting an administrative hearing as a result of the denial, suspension, or revocation of a firearms license, or the imposition of a civil fine, will have the opportunity for the submission and consideration of facts and arguments for review and consideration by the Director, and to make offers of settlement before or after a hearing.

B. Executive Order 13132

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Attorney General has determined that this regulation does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement.

C. Executive Order 12988

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Attorney General has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments merely clarify that an applicant or licensee requesting an administrative hearing as a result of the denial, suspension, or revocation of a firearms license, or the imposition of a civil fine, will have the opportunity for the submission and consideration of facts and arguments for review and consideration by the Director, and to make offers of settlement before or after a hearing.

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Disclosure

Copies of the NPRM, all comments received in response to the NPRM, and this final rule will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E-062, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-8740.

Drafting Information

The author of this document is Shermaine Kenner, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 478

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, and Transportation.

Authority and Issuance

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part 478 is amended as follows:

PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION 1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921-930; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).

2. In § 478.72, add a new fifth sentence to read as follows:
§ 478.72 Hearing after application denial.

* * * During the hearing the applicant will have the opportunity to submit facts and arguments for review and consideration; offers of settlement will not be entertained at the hearing but may be made before or after the hearing. * * *

3. In § 478.73, revise the last sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 478.73 Notice of revocation, suspension, or imposition of civil fine.

(a) * * * In addition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5) and 18 U.S.C. 924(p), a notice of revocation, suspension, or imposition of a civil fine may be issued on ATF Form 4500 whenever the Director has reason to believe that a licensee has knowingly transferred a firearm to an unlicensed person and knowingly failed to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1) with respect to the transfer and, at the time that the transferee most recently proposed the transfer, the national instant criminal background check system was operating and information was available to the system demonstrating that the transferee's receipt of a firearm would violate 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or 922(n) or State law; or that a licensee has violated 18 U.S.C. 922(z)(1) by selling, delivering, or transferring any handgun to any person other than a licensee, unless the transferee was provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun.

4. In § 478.74, revise the fifth and sixth sentences and add a seventh sentence to read as follows:
§ 478.74 Request for hearing after notice of suspension, revocation, or imposition of civil fine.

* * * If the decision is that the license should be revoked, or, in actions under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5) or 924(p), that the license should be revoked or suspended, or that a civil fine should be imposed, a certified copy of the summary shall be furnished to the licensee with the final notice of revocation, suspension, or imposition of a civil fine on ATF Form 5300.13. If the decision is that the license should not be revoked, or in actions under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5) or 924(p), that the license should not be revoked or suspended, and a civil fine should not be imposed, the licensee shall be notified in writing. During the hearing the licensee will have the opportunity to submit facts and arguments for review and consideration; offers of settlement will not be entertained at the hearing but may be made before or after the hearing.

Dated: May 17, 2016. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2016-12100 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0289; FRL-9946-69-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance Plan AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire that contains an ozone maintenance plan for New Hampshire's former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act requires that areas that are designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and also had been previously designated either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1-hour ozone standard, develop a plan showing how the state will maintain the ozone standard for the area. The intended effect of this action is to approve New Hampshire's maintenance plan. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES:

This direct final rule will be effective July 22, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 22, 2016. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0289 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:

Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-02, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1047, fax number (617) 918-0047, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What is the background for this action? II. What action is EPA taking? III. What is a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan? IV. How has New Hampshire addressed the components of a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan? V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action?

This action addresses requirements associated with the transition from the 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

EPA has established, and periodically reviews and revises, the NAAQS for ground-level ozone. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38855), EPA published a final rule for a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). On April 30, 1994 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated and classified areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Also, on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA published the Phase 1 rule for implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Among other requirements, this rule set forth requirements for anti-back sliding purposes for areas designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

Subsequently, in 2008, and in 2015, EPA again revised the ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, respectively.

II. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire on March 2, 2012. The SIP revision consists of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for New Hampshire. The maintenance plan demonstrates how the state intends to maintain the 1997 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.

The CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan requirement applies to areas that are designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and also had a designation of either nonattainment or attainment with an approved maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard as of June 15, 2004, the effective date of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard designation for these areas (See 69 FR 23857). In New Hampshire, this area consists of the cities and towns listed in Table 1.

Table 1—1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment/Maintenance Areas Designated Unclassifiable/Attainment for the 8-Hour Standard as of June 15, 2004 [= New Hampshire maintenance planning area] Area County Cities and towns included Boston-Lawrence-Worcester Area Hillsborough (part) Mont Vernon, Wilton. Manchester Area Hillsborough (part) Antrim, Bennington, Deering, Francestown, Greenfield, Greenville, Hancock, Hillsborough, Lyndeborough, Mason, New Boston, New Ipswich, Peterborough, Sharon, Temple, Weare, Windsor. Merrimack (part) Allenstown, Andover, Boscawen, Bow, Bradford, Canterbury, Chichester, Concord, Danbury, Dunbarton, Epsom, Franklin, Henniker, Hill, Hopkinton, Loudon, New London, Newbury, Northfield, Pembroke, Pittsfield, Salisbury, Sutton, Warner, Webster, Wilmot. Rockingham County Rockingham (part) Deerfield, Northwood, Nottingham. Strafford County Strafford (part) Barrington, Farmington, Lee, Madbury, Middleton, Milton, New Durham, Strafford. Cheshire County Cheshire (all) Alstead, Chesterfield, Dublin, Fitzwilliam, Gilsum, Harrisville, Hinsdale, Jaffrey, Keene, Marlborough, Marlow, Nelson, Richmond, Rindge, Roxbury, Stoddard, Sullivan, Surry, Swanzey, Troy, Walpole, Westmoreland, Winchester. III. What is a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan?

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, the implementation rule for the 1997 ozone standard requires that areas that were either nonattainment or maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA established June 15, 2007, three years after the effective date of the initial 1997 8-hour ozone designations, as the deadline for submission of plans for these areas. See 40 CFR 51.905.

On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance 1 that applies, in part, to areas that are designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and either have an approved 1-hour ozone maintenance plan or were designated nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. The purpose of the guidance is to assist the states in the development of a section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan SIP. There are five components of a section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan which are: (1) An attainment inventory, which is based on actual typical summer day emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for a ten-year period from a base year as chosen by the state; (2) a maintenance demonstration which shows how the area will remain in compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for 10 years after the effective date of designations (June 15, 2004); (3) a commitment to continue to operate air quality monitors; (4) a contingency plan that will ensure that a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is promptly addressed; and (5) an explanation of how the state will track the progress of the maintenance plan.

1 “Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act,” EPA memorandum dated May 20, 2005, from Lydia Wegman to Air Division Directors.

Subsequently, in the implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264; March 6, 2015), EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Nevertheless, New Hampshire's March 2, 2012 SIP revision of a Section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is pending before us, so we are taking action on it at this time.

IV. How has New Hampshire addressed the components of a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan?

EPA has determined that the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses all of the necessary components of a Section 110(a)(1) 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan as discussed below.

A. Emissions Inventory

An emissions inventory is an itemized list of emission estimates for sources of air pollution in a given area for a specified time period. NHDES has provided a comprehensive emissions inventory for ozone precursors (NOX and VOCs) in the area. NHDES uses 2002 as the base year from which it projects emissions. The submittal also includes an explanation of the methodology used for determining the anthropogenic emissions (point, area, and mobile sources) in the maintenance area. The inventory is based on emissions for a “typical summer day.”

B. Maintenance Demonstration

With regard to demonstrating continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, NHDES projects that the total emissions from the maintenance area will decrease during the ten-year maintenance period. NHDES has projected emissions from 2002 until 2014. The projected trend in emissions is downward. This clearly demonstrates that the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained for the ten year period between 2004 and 2014, which is the required test.

Table 2 shows the total VOC and NOx emissions for the maintenance area in New Hampshire for the base year (2002), an interim year (2012), and a final year (2014).2 More detailed emissions tables can be found in the NHDES submittal. The trend in emissions is downward, for each pollutant in the area. As such, the plan demonstrates that, from an emissions projections standpoint, emissions are projected to decrease.

2 It should be noted that the emissions shown in this table are for the entire five counties named, rather than the somewhat smaller maintenance area, due to the difficulty of parsing out inventory data to a sub-county basis. This difference is not considered significant, and does not affect the downward trend shown in the emissions.

Table 2—2002, 2012, and 2014 VOC and NOX Emissions for Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford Counties [Pounds per day] Source category VOC 2002 2012 2014 NOX 2002 2012 2014 Point 15,898 6,696 7,005 67,347 48,358 50,739 Area 93,778 85,443 91,068 10,516 9,091 9,134 Non-Road Mobile 68,223 40,210 35,121 49,787 36,131 31,215 On-Road Mobile 87,161 36,904 34,245 261,303 75,202 62,347 Total 265,060 169,253 167,439 388,953 168,782 153,435 C. Ambient Monitoring

With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of a maintenance plan, New Hampshire's submittal describes the ozone monitoring network in the maintenance area and New Hampshire commits to the continuing operation of an effective air quality monitoring network to verify the area's attainment status in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically, 40 CFR part 58. New Hampshire's SIP revision was submitted on March 2, 2012 and includes ozone design values 3 for 2010 and 2011 which demonstrate that the maintenance area is meeting the 0.08 ppm 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In addition, based on more recent ozone data from 2014, all of New Hampshire meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Furthermore, preliminary ozone data for 2015 shows that all of New Hampshire continues to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Table 3 shows the ozone design values for each monitor in the five county area listed in Table 2. As noted in Table 1, portions of these counties make up New Hampshire's maintenance area.

3 The design value at an ozone monitor is the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration measured at that monitor. The design value for an area is the highest design value recorded at any monitor in the area.

Table 3—Ozone Design Values (ppm) for Monitors in the New Hampshire Maintenance Area Monitor location AQS 4 No. Design Value 2014 2015 5 Keene 330050007 0.062 0.060 Peterborough 330115001 0.070 0.067 Nashua 330111011 0.066 0.064 Concord 330131007 0.063 0.062 Portsmouth 330150014 0.068 0.066 Rye 330150016 0.068 0.068 Londonderry 330150018 0.067 0.065 D. Contingency Measures

EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to require that the state develop a contingency plan that will ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. Therefore, as required by section 110(a)(1) of the Act, New Hampshire has listed in its submittal possible contingency measures, as well as a protocol the state will follow, in the event of a future ozone air quality problem. As noted in New Hampshire's SIP revision, at the conclusion of each ozone season, NHDES will evaluate whether the design value for any ozone monitor in the maintenance area meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. If the design value is above the standard, NHDES will evaluate the potential causes of this design value increase, specifically, whether this increase is due to an increase in local in-state emissions, an increase in upwind out-of-state emissions, or an exceptional event as defined in 40 CFR 50.1. If an increase in in-state emissions is determined to be a contributing factor to the design value increase, NHDES will evaluate the projected in-state emissions for the maintenance area for the ozone season in the following year. If in-state emissions are not expected to satisfactorily decrease in the following ozone season in order to mitigate the violation, New Hampshire will implement one or more of the contingency measures listed in the submittal, or substitute other VOC or NOx control measures to achieve additional in-state emission reductions. The contingency measure(s) will be selected by the Governor, or the Governor's designee, within six months of the end of the ozone season for which contingency measures have been determined necessary. Further details on the types of possible control measures to be used as contingencies can be found in the New Hampshire submittal. New Hampshire's submittal satisfies EPA's contingency measure requirements.

4 AQS is EPA's Air Quality System. States submit ozone monitoring data to AQS.

5 Ozone design values for 2015 are based on preliminary data.

E. Tracking Progress

New Hampshire's SIP revision notes that the State will track the maintenance of attainment by analyzing air quality trends at local monitors and annually updating the state's emissions inventories. NHDES produces comprehensive emission inventories on a three-year cycle and revises the inventories annually using updated emissions data for the largest sources.

Finally, as a practical matter, at this point in time, the 10 year maintenance period (2004-2014) has ended and, as noted by the ozone design values in Table 3 above, the area has maintained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

V. Final Action

EPA is approving into the New Hampshire SIP the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the New Hampshire area that is required to have such a plan. This area includes the cities and towns listed in Table 1 above.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective July 22, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by June 22, 2016.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on July 22, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 22, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: May 4, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 2. Section 52.1534 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 52.1534 Control strategy: Ozone.

(j) Approval—EPA is approving the Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the area of the New Hampshire required to have such a plan. This area includes portions of Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford Counties, and all of Cheshire County. This maintenance plan was submitted to EPA on March 2, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2016-11963 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783; FRL-9946-66-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that are inconsistent with federal laws based on recent decisions by the United States Courts and subsequent EPA rulemaking. This submittal established Minor New Source Review permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and includes Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting provisions for sources that are classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a PSD permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions. The PSD permitting provisions also require a PSD permit for modifications of otherwise major sources because they increased only GHG emissions above applicable levels. Additionally, we are disapproving severable portions of SIP submittals for the States of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing the EPA's July 20, 2011 rule deferring PSD requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources (“Biomass Deferral”). We are disapproving the provisions adopting the Biomass Deferral because they are no longer consistent with federal laws and regulations. The EPA is finalizing this disapproval under section 110 and part C of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA).

DATES:

This rule is effective on June 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783. 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., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

I. Background

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our January 11, 2016 proposal. See 81 FR 1141. In that document we proposed to disapprove severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal establishing GHG permitting requirements for minor sources and for sources that are classified as major, and thus, required to obtain a PSD permit based solely on their potential GHG emissions (referred to as “Step 2” PSD sources in our proposed action) because we determined that these revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establish permitting requirements that are inconsistent with federal laws resulting from recent decisions by United States Courts. We also proposed to disapprove severable portions of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP submittal, the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP, and the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP submittal that include the Biomass Deferral in the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma PSD programs. Our analysis found that these revisions to the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be disapproved because adoption or implementation of these provisions is no longer consistent with federal laws and regulations for PSD permitting.

II. Response to Comments

We received one comment on our proposed action. Our response to the submitted comment is provided below.

Comment: One commenter stated that “not requiring states to continue step two of the permitting for GHG as a major source thus requiring a PSD or Title V permit is the right decisions based on law.” Additionally, the commenter stated that “GHG emission issues would be better addressed in it's [sic] own statute rather than having the supreme court [sic] dictate the regulatory framework of GHG emissions.”

Response: We acknowledge the support of the commenter in finding that our proposed disapproval action is consistent with current law. GHG emissions are regulated under the CAA 1 and the CAA includes provisions for citizens, states, and regulated entities to seek judicial review of EPA's final regulatory decisions.2 Therefore our current action to disapprove the Step 2 permitting requirements is consistent with current law and is consistent with the statutory requirements of the CAA.

1 See section 160 of the Act and the Act's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 52.21.

2 See section 307 of the Act.

III. Final Action

We are taking this final action under section 110 and part C of the Act; as such, we are not imposing sanctions as a result of this disapproval. This final disapproval does not require the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan because we are finding that the submitted provisions are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.

We are disapproving the following severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal that establish GHG permitting requirements for minor sources and Step 2 PSD:

• Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted on February 6, 2012; and

• Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100-8-31 establishing PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources at paragraph (E) of the definition of “subject to regulation” as submitted on February 6, 2012.

We are also disapproving as inconsistent with federal laws and regulations for PSD permitting, severable portions of the following SIP submittals that include the Biomass Deferral:

• Substantive revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of “CO2 Equivalent Emissions” at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the Biomass Deferral as submitted on November 6, 2012;

• Substantive revisions to the New Mexico SIP definition of “Subject to Regulation” at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(a) NMAC to implement the Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 8, 2013; and

• Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP definitions of “carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” at OAC 252:100-1-3 and “subject to regulation” at OAC 252:100-8-31 as submitted on January 18, 2013.

As a result of the final disapproval actions listed above, the EPA is also updating the “Approval status” section of the Arkansas SIP at 40 CFR 52.172, New Mexico SIP at 40 CFR 52.1622, and Oklahoma SIP at 40 CFR 52.1922. Additionally, we are renumbering 40 CFR 52.172 of the Arkansas SIP for consistency.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. We have concluded that the state choices under review in this action do not meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action disapproves state law as not meeting Federal requirements for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action disapproves submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action disapproves submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action disapproves submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action disapproves provisions of state law that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions; there are no requirements or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 22, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: May 11, 2016. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart E—Arkansas
2. Section 52.172 is revised to read as follows:
§ 52.172 Approval status.

With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Arkansas's state implementation plan under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that the plan satisfies all applicable requirements of Parts C and D, Title I, of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, except as noted below.

(a) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP submitted March 28, 2008 is disapproved for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

(b) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs submitted March 28, 2008 and September 16, 2009 are disapproved for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

(c) GHGs: The revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of “CO2 Equivalent Emissions” at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on November 6, 2012 are disapproved.

Subpart GG—New Mexico
3. Section 52.1622 is revised to read as follows:
§ 52.1622 Approval status.

With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves New Mexico's state implementation plan under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that the plan satisfies all applicable requirements of Parts C and D, Title I, of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, except as noted below.

(a) The revisions to the New Mexico SIP definition of “Subject to Regulation” at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(a) NMAC to implement the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 8, 2013 are disapproved.

(b) [Reserved]

Subpart LL—Oklahoma
4. Section 52.1922 is revised to read as follows:
§ 52.1922 Approval status.

With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Oklahoma's state implementation plan under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that the plan satisfies all applicable requirements of Parts C and D, Title I, of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, except as noted below.

(a) Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted on February 6, 2012.

(b) Revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100-8-31 establishing PSD permitting requirements for sources that are classified as major and thus required to obtain a PSD permit based solely on their potential GHG emissions (“Step 2 sources”) at paragraph (E) of the definition of “subject to regulation” as submitted on February 6, 2012.

(c) Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP definitions of “carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” at OAC 252:100-1-3 and “subject to regulation” at OAC 252:100-8-31 to implement the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 18, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2016-11965 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-9946-88-OAR] RIN 2060-AG12 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 31 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Determination of acceptability.

SUMMARY:

This determination of acceptability expands the list of acceptable substitutes pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. This action lists as acceptable additional substitutes for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector.

DATES:

This determination is effective on May 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). All electronic documents in the docket are listed in the index at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket (Nos. A-91-42 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118), EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), William J. Clinton West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerald Wozniak by telephone at (202) 343-9624, by email at [email protected], or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier deliveries should be sent to the office location at 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for the evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well as other EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available at EPA's Ozone Layer Protection Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection including the SNAP portion at www.epa.gov/snap/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP Program B. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612 C. How the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work D. Additional Information about the SNAP Program Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes

This action presents EPA's most recent decision to list as acceptable several substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. New substitutes are:

• CO2 in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses;

• Hydrofluoroolefin 1 (HFO)-1336mzz(Z) in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses;

1 Hydrofluoroolefins are unsaturated hydrofluorocarbons having at least one double bond.

• HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) (proposed designation R-514A) in two refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses; and

• R-513A in retail food refrigeration—food processing and dispensing equipment.

For copies of the full list of acceptable substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) in all industrial sectors, visit the SNAP portion of EPA's Ozone Layer Protection Web site at www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector. Substitutes listed as unacceptable; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; or acceptable, subject to use conditions are also listed in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail. Appendix A contains tables summarizing today's listing decisions for these new substitutes. The statements in the “Further Information” column in the tables provide additional information, but are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the “Further Information” column may not include a comprehensive list of other legal obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although you are not required to follow recommendations in the “Further Information” column of the table to use a substitute consistent with section 612 of the CAA, some of these statements may refer to obligations that are enforceable or binding under federal or state programs other than the SNAP program. In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating practices in existing industry standards and/or building codes. When using these substitutes, EPA strongly encourages you to apply the information in this column. Many of these recommendations, if adopted, would not require significant changes to existing operating practices.

You can find submissions to EPA for the substitutes listed in this document, as well as other materials supporting the decisions in this action, in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 1. Carbon Dioxide (R-744)

EPA's decision: EPA finds carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) acceptable as a substitute for use in:

• Ice skating rinks (new equipment) • Centrifugal chillers (new equipment) • Positive displacement chillers 2 (new equipment)

2 Examples of positive displacement chillers include reciprocating, screw, and scroll chillers. EPA has previously used those terms in acceptability listings for this end-use.

• Industrial process air conditioning (new equipment)

Carbon dioxide is also known as R-744 when used as a refrigerant. Its Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) is 124-38-9.

You may find the redacted submissions in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the names, “SNAP Information Notice for CO2 (R-744) in Ice Skating Rinks” and “SNAP Information Notice for CO2 (R-744) in Chillers and Industrial Process Air Conditioning.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute when used in these end-uses. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Ice Skating Rinks Substitute: Carbon Dioxide (CO2 or R-744)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial and Industrial Heat Pumps Substitute: Carbon Dioxide (CO2 or R-744)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Chillers and Industrial Process Air-Conditioning Substitute: Carbon Dioxide (CO2 or R-744)”

EPA previously listed CO2 as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses, including industrial process refrigeration, and in the case of motor vehicle air conditioning as acceptable subject to use conditions, (e.g., January 13, 1995, 60 FR 3318; September 30, 2009, 74 FR 50129; June 16, 2010, 75 FR 34017; June 6, 2012, 77 FR 33315; August 10, 2012, 77 FR 47768; October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863).

Environmental information: CO2 has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero.3 The 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 is one.4

3 EPA assumes that compounds containing no chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero.

4 Unless otherwise stated, all GWPs in this document are 100-year values from: IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor M., and Miller, H.L. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.

EPA's regulation codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F exempts CO2 refrigerant from the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA (March 12, 2004, 69 FR 11946).5 The CAA and EPA's venting regulations prohibit the intentional venting or release of substitutes for class I or class II ODS during the repair, maintenance, service or disposal of refrigeration and air conditioning appliances, unless EPA expressly exempts a particular substitute refrigerant from the venting prohibition, as for CO2.

5 For more information, including definitions, see 40 CFR part 82 subpart F.

CO2 is excluded from the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

Flammability information: CO2 is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute at lower concentrations include loss of concentration, headache and shortness of breath. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, it may cause central nervous system depression. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. For additional information concerning potential health risks of CO2, see EPA's final rule under the SNAP program for use of CO2 as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems (June 6, 2012, 77 FR 33315) and EPA's risk screens in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118.

To mitigate these potential health risks in the workplace, CO2 has an 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5,000 ppm required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). It also has a 15-minute recommended short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 30,000 ppm established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in the manufacturer's safety data sheet (SDS), in the American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. We also recommend that users of CO2 adhere to NIOSH's STEL and to ASHRAE 15, and we expect that users will meet OSHA's PEL. EPA anticipates that users will be able to address potential health risks by complying with the PEL and by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: CO2 has an ODP of zero, comparable 6 to or lower than other substitutes listed as acceptable in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

6 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22 with an ODP of 0.055. Throughout this document, ODP values cited for class I and class II ODS are from EPA's regulations at appendix A to subpart A of 40 CFR part 82.

In ice skating rinks, many substitutes listed as acceptable have higher GWPs than the GWP of one for CO2. HFC-134a, R-404A, THR-03 and other HFC blends have GWPs ranging from 920 to 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable for ice skating rinks that have a comparable or lower GWP include ammonia absorption and ammonia vapor compression with a GWP of zero.

In centrifugal and positive displacement chillers, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have higher GWPs than CO2, such as R-450A, R-513A, HFC-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends, with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990.7 CO2's GWP of one is comparable to or lower than that of several other acceptable substitutes for new equipment within these end-uses including ammonia absorption and ammonia vapor compression, HFO-1234ze(E), and for centrifugal chillers only, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs in the range of zero to seven.

7 In a proposed rule published April 18, 2016 (81 FR 22809), EPA proposed to change the status of a number of substitutes from acceptable to unacceptable for use in new centrifugal chillers and in new positive displacement chillers. Those substitutes had GWPs ranging from 920 to 3,990 in both end-uses. If EPA takes final action as proposed, there would still be several substitutes that remain acceptable and that have higher GWPs than CO2, including HFO-1234ze(E), IKON B, R-450A, R-513A, and THR-02 for both end-uses, and for centrifugal chillers also IKON A and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs ranging from approximately 30 to 630.

In industrial process air conditioning, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have higher GWPs than CO2, such as R-513A, R-450A, HFC-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990. CO2's GWP of one is comparable to or lower than several other acceptable substitutes for new equipment in industrial process air conditioning including ammonia absorption and ammonia vapor compression with a GWP of zero and HFO-1234ze(E) with a GWP of one to six.

Flammability and toxicity risks of this substitute are comparable to or lower than the flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. The toxicity risks are similar to those for many other refrigerants and, as with those other refrigerants, can be minimized by use consistent with the OSHA PEL, NIOSH STEL, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds CO2 acceptable in these end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by CO2 is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

2. HFO-1336mzz(Z) (Opteon® MZ)

EPA's decision: EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable as a substitute for use in:

• Centrifugal chillers (new equipment) • Positive displacement chillers (new equipment) • Industrial process air conditioning (new equipment) • Non-mechanical heat transfer (new and retrofit equipment)

HFO-1336mzz(Z) is also known as (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene and cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9), and goes by the trade name of Opteon® MZ.

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Opteon® MZ.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute in these end-uses. These assessments are available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Chillers and Industrial Process Air Conditioning Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z) (Opteon® MZ).”

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Heat Transfer Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z) (Opteon® MZ).”

We have previously listed HFO-1336mzz(Z) as an acceptable foam blowing agent in a number of foam blowing end-uses (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863; July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053).

Environmental information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero. It has a 100-year GWP of about nine.8 HFO-1336mzz(Z) is a VOC and it is not exempted from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The manufacturer has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC under those regulations, based on its claim that the chemical exhibits low photochemical reactivity. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

8 Baasandorj, M., Ravishankara, A.R., Burkholder, J.B., Atmospheric Chemistry of (Z)-CF3CH═CHCF3: OH Radical Reaction Rate Coefficient and Global Warming Potential, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 2011, 115, 10,539-10,549, 2011.

Flammability information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of this substitute include skin or eye irritation or frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. EPA issued a Significant New Use Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act on June 5, 2015, to require persons to submit a Significant New Use Notice to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process HFO-1336mzz(Z) for uses other than those described in the Premanufacture Notice (80 FR 32003, 32005).

EPA anticipates that HFO-1336mzz(Z) will be used consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) committee of the Occupational Alliance for Risk Science (OARS) recommends a WEEL for the workplace of 500 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).9 EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

9 The documentation may be viewed at www.tera.org/OARS/HFO-1336mzz-Z%20WEEL%20FINAL.pdf.

Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero, comparable 10 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from 0 to 0.02.

10 In contrast, the historically used ODS CFC-11, CFC-12 and HCFC-22 have ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

In centrifugal and positive displacement chillers, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have higher GWPs than HFO-1336mzz(Z), such as R-450A, R-513A, HFC-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990.11 HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP of about nine is comparable to or higher than several other acceptable substitutes for new equipment within these end-uses including ammonia absorption and ammonia vapor compression, HFO-1234ze(E), and for centrifugal chillers only, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs in the range of zero to seven.

11 In a proposed rule published April 18, 2016 (81 FR 22809), EPA proposed to change the status of a number of substitutes from acceptable to unacceptable for use in new centrifugal chillers and in new positive displacement chillers. Those substitutes had GWPs ranging from 920 to 3,990 in both end-uses. If EPA takes final action as proposed, there would still be several substitutes that remain acceptable and that have higher GWPs than HFO-1336mzz(Z), including IKON B, R-450A, R-513A, and THR-02 for both end-uses, and for centrifugal chillers also IKON A, with GWPs ranging from approximately 30 to 630.

In industrial process air conditioning, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have higher GWPs than HFO-1336mzz(Z), such as R-513A, R-450A, HFC-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990. HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP of about nine is comparable to or higher than several other acceptable substitutes for new equipment in industrial process air conditioning including ammonia absorption and ammonia vapor compression with a GWP of zero and HFO-1234ze(E) with a GWP of one to six.

In non-mechanical heat transfer, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have higher GWPs such as HFC-245fa, HFC-134a and HFC-125 with GWPs ranging from 1,030 to 3,500. HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP of about nine is comparable to or higher than those of several other acceptable substitutes in the same end-use, such as trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene, HFO-1234ze(E), CO2 and ethane, with GWPs in the range of one to seven.

Flammability and toxicity risks of this substitute are comparable to or lower than the flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the OARS WEEL, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by HFO-1336mzz(Z) is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

3. HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) (Proposed R-514A, Opteon® XP30)

EPA's decision: EPA finds the blend HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (74.7/25.3) acceptable as a substitute for use in:

• Centrifugal chillers (new and retrofit equipment)

• Positive-displacement chillers (new and retrofit equipment)

This refrigerant is a weighted blend of 74.7 percent HFO-1336mzz(Z) and 25.3 percent trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (CAS Reg. No. 156-60-5). ASHRAE has proposed a designation of R-514A for this refrigerant blend. This blend is marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP30.

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Opteon® XP30.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute in this end-use. These assessments are available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene Blend (74.7/25.3) (Opteon® XP30).”

Environmental information: Environmental information on HFO-1336mzz(Z) is described above in listing A.2 of this document. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene has an ODP of approximately 0.00024 12 and the blend would have a weighted ODP value of (approximately 0.00006). We are unaware of a calculated GWP value for trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in the peer-reviewed literature, but we expect its GWP is less than five based on its structure and its atmospheric lifetime of 12.7 days.13 The blend is expected to have a weighted 100-year GWP of approximately seven. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene is a VOC and it is not exempted from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

12 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. “Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.

13 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. Op cit.

Flammability information: Although the trans-dichloroethylene component of this blend is flammable, HFO-1336mzz(Z) is not flammable, and HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) include skin or eye irritation or frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space.

EPA anticipates that HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) will be used consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. Trans-dichloroethylene has an 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week PEL of 200 ppm required by OSHA. The WEEL committee of OARS recommends a WEEL for the workplace of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for HFO-1336mzz(Z).14 The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) for the blend of 323 ppm on an 8-hour TWA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the PEL, WEEL, and the AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

14 The documentation may be viewed at www.tera.org/OARS/HFO-1336mzz-Z%20WEEL%20FINAL.pdf.

Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) has an ODP of approximately 0.00006, comparable 15 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.02.

15 In contrast, the historically used ODS CFC-11, CFC-12, and HCFC-22 have ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.

In centrifugal and positive-displacement chillers, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have higher GWPs than HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3), such as R-450A, R-513A, HFC-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990.16 HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3)'s GWP of about seven is comparable to or higher than several other acceptable substitutes for new equipment within these end-uses, including ammonia absorption and ammonia vapor compression, HFO-1234ze(E) and, for centrifugal chillers only, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs in the range of zero to seven.

16 In a proposed rule published April 18, 2016 (81 FR 22809), EPA proposed to change the status of a number of substitutes from acceptable to unacceptable for use in new centrifugal chillers and in new positive displacement chillers. Those substitutes had GWPs ranging from 920 to 3,990 in both end-uses. If EPA takes final action as proposed, there would still be several substitutes that remain acceptable and that have higher GWPs than HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3), including IKON B, R-450A, R-513A, and THR-02 for both end-uses, and for centrifugal chillers also IKON A, with GWPs ranging from approximately 30 to 630.

Flammability and toxicity risks of this substitute are comparable to or lower than the flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the OSHA PEL, OARS WEEL, the manufacturer's recommended AEL, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by this substitute is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

4. R-513A

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-513A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

• Retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment (new and retrofit equipment)

R-513A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP10, is a weighted blend of 44 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 56 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Opteon® XP 10.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

• “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-513A”

Environmental information: R-513A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 1,430 and one to four,17 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-513A has a GWP of about 630. The components of R-513A are both excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

17 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

Flammability information: R-513A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space.

The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively, the components of R-513A. The manufacturer of R-513A recommends an AEL of 653 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL, and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-513A has an ODP of zero, comparable 18 to or lower than other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

18 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502A, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

R-513A's GWP of about 630 is comparable to or lower than most other substitutes in retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing, including R-450A, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407C, and a number of HFC blends, with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,920.19 R-513A's GWP of about 630 is higher than those of some other acceptable substitutes in new retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing units, including ammonia vapor compression with a secondary loop and CO2 with GWPs of zero and one, respectively; these alternatives with lower GWP are not listed as acceptable for use in retrofit equipment.

19 In a proposed rule published April 18, 2016 (81 FR 22809), EPA proposed to change the status of a number of substitutes from acceptable to unacceptable for use in new retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing units. Those substitutes had GWPs ranging from 1,770 to 3,990. If EPA takes final action as proposed, there would still be several substitutes that remain acceptable and that have higher GWPs than R-513A, including FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03, with GWPs ranging from approximately 920 to 1,510.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds R-513A acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-513A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other available substitutes in the same end-use.

II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP Program

Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

1. Rulemaking

Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I substance (CFC, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II substance (HCFC) with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available.

2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes

Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of “acceptable” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector and the lists of “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.

3. Petition Process

Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.

4. 90-Day Notification

Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

5. Outreach

Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.

6. Clearinghouse

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

B. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in the major industrial use sectors (subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These sectors are the following: Refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.

Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as acceptable those substitutes that do not present a significantly greater risk to human health and the environment as compared with other substitutes that are currently or potentially available.

C. How the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a substitute to replace a class I substance or class II substance in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). While this requirement typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the entity likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,20 it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, and end users 21 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after notice has been provided to the agency.

20 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, “interstate commerce” means the distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance.

21 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “end-use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ODS.

The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)).22 Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions may be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes.23

22 The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision.

23 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “use” means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.

After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency generally requires a user of a substitute subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application.24 EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using the substitute in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

24 In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA established narrowed use limits for certain substitutes over a limited period of time for specific MVAC and foam applications, on the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available for those specific applications within broader end-uses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to become available over time, e.g., after military qualification testing for foam blowing agents in military applications or after development of improved servicing infrastructure in a destination country for MVAC in vehicles destined for export.

The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower risk alternative is available or potentially available 25 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed circumstance.

25 In addition to acceptable commercially available substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available substitutes. The SNAP program's definition of “potentially available” is “any alternative for which adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which the agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.” (40 CFR 82.172).

As described in this document and elsewhere, including the initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register at 59 FR 13044 on March 18, 1994, the SNAP program evaluates substitutes within a comparative risk framework. The SNAP program compares new substitutes both to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the CAA, and to other available or potentially available alternatives for the same end-uses. The environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers include ozone depletion potential, flammability, toxicity, occupational and consumer health and safety, as well as contributions to global warming and other environmental factors. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute—and over time, information applicable to a substitute can change. This approach does not imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk, either to the environment or to human health. Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.

In contrast, EPA publishes “notices of acceptability” or “determinations of acceptability,” to notify the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.

Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “further information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by OSHA). The “further information” classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “further information” column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus many of the statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating practices.

D. Additional Information about the SNAP Program

For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at: www.epa.gov/snap. For more information on the agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations are found at: www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 17, 2016. Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes Refrigeration and Air Conditioning End-use Substitute Decision Further information 1 Centrifugal chillers (new only) Carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744) Acceptable CO2 has no ozone depletion potential (ODP) and a global warming potential (GWP) of 1. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established a required 8-hour (8-hr) time-weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for CO2 of 5,000 ppm. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established a 15-minute recommended short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 30,000 ppm. CO2 is nonflammable. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in American Society for Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard 15. HFO-1336mzz(Z) ((Z)- 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene) Acceptable HFO-1336mzz(Z) (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9) has no ODP and a 100-year GWP of roughly 9. This compound is nonflammable. The Occupational Alliance for Risk Science (OARS) recommends a Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFO-1336mzz(Z). Centrifugal chillers (new and retrofit equipment) HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) (proposed R-514A) Acceptable HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) has an ODP value of approximately 0.00006 and an estimated 100-year GWP of approximately 7. This substitute is a blend of 74.7 percent HFO-1336mzz(Z), also known as (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-but-2-ene and cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9), and 25.3 percent trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (CAS Reg. No. 156-60-5). The blend is nonflammable. OSHA has established an 8-hr TWA PEL of 200 ppm for trans-dichloroethylene. OARS recommends a WEEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFO-1336mzz(Z). The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) for the workplace for HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) of 323 ppm (8-hr TWA). Heat transfer (new and retrofit equipment) HFO-1336mzz(Z) ((Z)- 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene) Acceptable HFO-1336mzz(Z) (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9) has no ODP and a 100-year GWP of roughly 9. This compound is nonflammable. OARS recommends a WEEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFO-1336mzz(Z). Ice skating rinks (new only) Carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744) Acceptable CO2 has no ODP and a GWP of 1. OSHA has established an 8-hr TWA PEL for CO2 of 5,000 ppm. NIOSH has established a 15-minute TWA recommended STEL of 30,000 ppm. CO2 is nonflammable. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in ASHRAE standard 15. Industrial process air conditioning (new only) Carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744) Acceptable CO2 has no ODP and a GWP of 1. OSHA has established an 8-hr TWA PEL for CO2 of 5,000 ppm. NIOSH has established a 15-minute TWA recommended STEL of 30,000 ppm. CO2 is nonflammable. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in ASHRAE standard 15. HFO-1336mzz(Z) ((Z)- 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene) Acceptable HFO-1336mzz(Z) (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9) has no ODP and a 100-year GWP of roughly 9. This compound is nonflammable. OARS recommends a WEEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFO-1336mzz(Z). Positive displacement chillers (new only) Carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744) Acceptable CO2 has no ODP and a GWP of 1. OSHA has established an 8-hr TWA PEL for CO2 of 5,000 ppm. NIOSH has established a 15-minute TWA recommended STEL of 30,000 ppm. CO2 is nonflammable. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in ASHRAE standard 15. HFO-1336mzz(Z) ((Z)- 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene) Acceptable HFO-1336mzz(Z) (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9) has no ODP and a 100-year GWP of roughly 9. This compound is nonflammable. OARS recommends a WEEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFO-1336mzz(Z). Positive displacement chillers (new and retrofit equipment) HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) (proposed R-514A) Acceptable HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) has an ODP value of approximately 0.00006 and an estimated 100-year GWP of approximately 7. This substitute is a blend of 74.7 percent HFO-1336mzz(Z), also known as (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-but-2-ene and cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9), and 25.3 percent trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (CAS Reg. No. 156-60-5). The blend is nonflammable. OSHA has established an 8-hr TWA PEL of 200 ppm for trans-dichloroethylene. OARS recommends a WEEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFO-1336mzz(Z). The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for the HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) of 323 ppm (8-hr TWA). Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment) R-513A Acceptable R-513A has no ODP and a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). This blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-513A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA). 1 Observe recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS and guidance for all listed refrigerants.
[FR Doc. 2016-12117 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 150303208-6394-02] RIN 0648-BE70 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35 AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

NMFS issues regulations to implement Amendment 35 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) (Amendment 35), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). Amendment 35 and this final rule removes black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP and the regulations, and revises regulations regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program. The purpose of this final rule is to ensure that only snapper-grouper species requiring Federal management are included in the Snapper-Grouper FMP, improve the consistency of management of snapper-grouper species in waters off south Florida across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries, and to align regulations for golden tilefish longline endorsements with the Council's original intent for establishing the longline endorsement program.

DATES:

This final rule is effective June 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Electronic copies of Amendment 35 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 35 includes a draft environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, a regulatory impact review, and a Fishery Impact Statement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP, and includes black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, schoolmaster, and golden tilefish. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

On February 5, 2016, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 35 and requested public comment (81 FR 6222). On March 4, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 35 and requested public comment (81 FR 11502). The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 35 on May 4, 2016. The proposed rule and Amendment 35 outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by Amendment 35 and this final rule is provided below.

Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule

Amendment 35 and this final rule removes black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP and the regulations, and revises the golden tilefish longline endorsement regulations to be consistent with the Council's original intent for establishing the longline endorsement program.

Remove Four Species From the FMP

The Council determined in Amendment 35 that black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster should be removed from the FMP, to ensure that only species requiring Federal management are included in the FMP. While these species are currently in the FMP, they have extremely low commercial landings in state and Federal waters, and almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) occurs in waters off the coast of South Florida. Currently, NMFS does not manage these species in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf); however, the species are subject to regulations in Florida state waters. As described in Amendment 35, there are currently different regulations for recreational bag limits, size limits, and catch levels for these species in South Atlantic Federal waters and Florida state waters. Inconsistent regulations make enforcement difficult and can be confusing to the public. Amendment 35 and this final rule removes black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP and the regulations and NMFS will not manage these species in Federal waters of the South Atlantic. At its April 2016 meeting, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission approved extending state regulation of these species into Federal waters off Florida for Florida-state registered fishing vessels, consistent with section 306(a)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to provide consistent regulations for these species across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries.

Black snapper is part of the deep-water complex within the FMP. The deep-water complex currently includes black snapper, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper. With black snapper removed from the FMP, the annual catch limit (ACL) for the deep-water complex is reduced from 170,278 lb (77,237 kg), round weight, to 169,896 lb (77,063 kg), round weight, a difference of 382 lb (173 kg), round weight.

Dog snapper and mahogany snapper are part of the other snappers complex within the FMP. The other snappers complex currently includes cubera snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, dog snapper, and mahogany snapper. Removal of dog snapper and mahogany snapper from the FMP reduces the other snappers complex ACL from 1,517,716 lb (688,424 kg), round weight, to 1,513,883 lb (686,688 kg), round weight, a difference of 3,833 lb (1,739 kg), round weight.

Schoolmaster is currently designated as an ecosystem component (EC) species in the FMP. The Council chose not to retain dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper in the FMP as EC species because the objective of the amendment is to establish a consistent regulatory environment across jurisdictional boundaries in Gulf and South Atlantic Federal waters and Florida state waters. Because NMFS does not manage these species in Gulf Federal waters, the Council determined that retaining them as EC species would continue inconsistent regulations across jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, if these species were designated as EC species, the state of Florida would not be able to extend their management authority for these species into Federal waters, because states may not generally manage species in Federal waters if those species are included in Federal fishery management plans, as per section 306(a)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Removing these species from the FMP and the regulations is not expected to result in any adverse biological effects.

Clarify Regulations for Golden Tilefish Endorsement Holders

The final rule to implement Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858, April 23, 2013) established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. A longline endorsement is required to fish for golden tilefish with longline gear. Amendment 18B also established a golden tilefish hook-and-line quota and modified the golden tilefish commercial trip limits. The Council established the longline endorsement program and gear specific commercial quotas to help ensure that fishermen fishing with each gear type have a fair and equitable allocation of the commercial quota. The Council did not intend for longline endorsement holders to fish on the hook-and-line quota, or for non-endorsement holders to fish on the longline quota.

The Council and NMFS are aware that since Amendment 18B was implemented, some longline endorsement holders are transferring their golden tilefish longline endorsement to another vessel and then fishing for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota. Other endorsement holders are renewing their Federal commercial snapper-grouper vessel permit but are waiting to renew their golden tilefish longline endorsement, so that they are able to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota while their longline endorsement is not valid. Neither scenario is consistent with the original intent of the Council in Amendment 18B. The Council decided to clarify their intent for golden tilefish longline endorsement holders in Amendment 35. Currently, as described at § 622.191(a)(2)(ii), the regulations state that “Vessels with a golden tilefish longline endorsement are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.” This final rule revises the regulations to state that “Vessels that have valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsements anytime during the fishing year, are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.” Thus, a fisherman who owns a vessel with a valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsement would not be eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, hook-and-line trip limit during that fishing year.

Additional Change to Codified Text

In the part 622 regulations, NMFS would revise “allowable biological catch” to read “acceptable biological catch” wherever it occurs. In the part 600 regulations, “ABC” is defined as “acceptable biological catch;” however, in the part 622 regulations, “ABC” is defined as “acceptable biological catch” in three places and “allowable biological catch” in four places. NMFS has determined that “acceptable biological catch” is the more precise definition for “ABC”. Therefore, to be consistent with the part 600 regulations and to use the more precise terminology, NMFS changes the definition of “ABC” to “acceptable biological catch,” and accordingly revise “allowable biological catch,” wherever it occurs in the part 622 regulations.

Comments and Responses

A total of 11 comments were received on the proposed rule and Amendment 35 from individuals, a recreational fishing organization, the state of Florida, and a Federal agency. One individual and the state of Florida supported the removal of the four species from the Snapper-Grouper FMP. Two comments were not related to the actions in the Amendment 35. The Federal agency stated that it had no comment on the proposed rule or Amendment 35. The remaining comments that specifically relate to the actions contained in the amendment and the rule as well as NMFS' respective responses, are summarized below.

Comment 1: NMFS should wait for stock assessments for black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster, before removing these species from the FMP.

Response: NMFS disagrees that it is necessary to complete stock assessments before removing these species from the FMP. Although a stock assessment has not been performed for any of these species, there is no indication that these stocks are depleted. Black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster are currently in the FMP, but have extremely low landings in state and Federal waters, and almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) occurs in waters off south Florida. While NMFS does not manage these species in the Federal waters of the Gulf, these species are subject to regulations in Florida state waters in both the Gulf and South Atlantic. Further, as anticipated in Amendment 35 and the state of Florida's comment on the proposed rule, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has approved extending state regulations for these species for Florida-state registered vessels into Federal waters of the South Atlantic and Gulf off Florida. Based on these factors, the Council and NMFS determined that removing these species from the FMP is not expected to result in any adverse biological effects. Further, the Council has the ability to add these species back into the FMP at any time, if such an action is warranted in the future.

Comment 2: NMFS should allow a fisher to continue fishing for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear once the commercial quota for the longline gear component is met, because the golden tilefish portion of the snapper-grouper fishery has separate commercial quotas for both hook-and-line and longline gear. It is discriminatory and unfair not to allow fishers with longline endorsements to fish under the hook-and-line quota.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Amendment 35 clarifies the intent of the Council in Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858, April 23, 2013), which established a golden tilefish longline endorsement program. Amendment 18B also established golden tilefish commercial quotas for both the hook-and-line and longline components and revised the golden tilefish commercial trip limits. As explained in Amendment 35, the golden tilefish longline endorsement, separate quotas by gear type, and trip limits, were established because the golden tilefish commercial ACL was being harvested so rapidly by fishermen using longline gear, that fishermen who had historically used hook-and-line gear to target golden tilefish were not able to participate in the golden tilefish portion of the snapper-grouper fishery as a result of the commercial ACL being met early in the fishing year through primarily longline effort. The Council established the longline endorsement program and gear-specific commercial quotas to help ensure that fishermen using each gear type have a fair and equitable allocation of the commercial quota. In Amendment 18B, the Council determined that allocating 75 percent of the overall commercial ACL to longline gear (endorsement holders) and 25 percent of the commercial ACL to hook-and-line gear resulted in a fair and equitable distribution of the golden tilefish resource in the South Atlantic. The separate quota for longline gear is greater than the quota for hook-and-line gear because longline gear can harvest more fish than hook-and-line gear can per commercial trip. When establishing gear-specific quotas, the Council never intended for longline endorsement holders to harvest golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota, or for non-endorsement holders (hook-and-line) to fish under the longline quota.

However, the Council and NMFS are aware that since Amendment 18B was implemented, some longline endorsement holders have been transferring their golden tilefish longline endorsement to another vessel and then fishing for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota. Other endorsement holders are renewing their Federal commercial snapper-grouper vessel permit but are waiting to renew their golden tilefish longline endorsement, thereby fishing for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line quota while their longline endorsement is not valid. Neither scenario is consistent with the original intent of the Council in Amendment 18B. Through Amendment 35, the Council clarified and reaffirmed their intent for the golden tilefish longline endorsement program in the snapper-grouper fishery, to ensure that fishermen using both gear types can participate in harvesting the golden tilefish resource.

Comment 3: Revision of the golden tilefish longline endorsement regulations will create an economic hardship for the current 22 golden tilefish longline endorsement holders.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that there may be potential negative economic effects to the 22 longline endorsement holders, as further discussed in the Classification section to this final rule. The Council considered these effects in Amendment 18B and Amendment 35, and NMFS has determined that the actions in Amendment 35 are consistent with the National Standards in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In Amendment 18B, the Council considered the negative effects to longline vessels resulting from the allocation of the golden tilefish commercial ACL between longline endorsement holders and those without longline endorsements. Since the implementation of Amendment 18B, and contrary to the original intent of the Council, some longline endorsement holders have received economic benefits by harvesting golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota, in addition to harvesting under the longline quota. Amendment 35 and this final rule will remove these unanticipated economic benefits.

If a commercial fishermen with a longline endorsement wishes to continue fishing for golden tilefish under the hook-and-line commercial trip limit during a specific fishing year after the effective date of this final rule, they would need to do so on a different vessel with a different commercial snapper-grouper permit. This is consistent with the Council's original intent in Amendment 18B, which was reaffirmed by the Council in Amendment 35. NMFS notes that it would likely not be economically feasible to purchase a new vessel and permit for the sole purpose of harvesting golden tilefish under the hook-and-line trip limit; however, NMFS assumes commercial fishers will only purchase new assets if they expect to result in a profit. Therefore, the negative economic effects of this final rule are limited in scope to a potential reduction in golden tilefish revenue for the 22 longline endorsement holders, most of whom did not harvest golden tilefish under both the longline and hook-and-line quotas on a single vessel in 2014.

Comment 4: Changing the golden tilefish endorsement regulations will limit the availability of golden tilefish. It is important to have golden tilefish available to local restaurants and seafood dealers during the January through March grouper spawning season closure.

Response: If the harvest of golden tilefish is closed to longline endorsement holders during a fishing year as a result of reaching the longline quota, golden tilefish could still be available to seafood restaurants and dealers through fishers who harvest golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota. Furthermore, during the January through March spawning season closure that is in place for most grouper species, other species such as blueline tilefish, snowy grouper, black sea bass, greater amberjack, and vermilion snapper could still be available to seafood restaurants and dealers when the longline quota for golden tilefish had been met.

Classification

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 35, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

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

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. The proposed rule and the preamble to this final rule provide a statement of the need for and objectives of this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.

In compliance with section 604 of the RFA, NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this final rule. The FRFA follows.

Public comments relating to socio-economic implications and potential impacts on small businesses are addressed in the responses to comments 2, 3, and 4 in the Comments and Responses section of this final rule. No changes to this final rule were made in response to public comments. No comments were received from the Office of Advocacy for the Small Business Administration.

NMFS agrees that the Council's choice of preferred alternatives will best achieve the Council's objectives for Amendment 35 while minimizing, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects on fishers, support industries, and associated communities.

This final rule will directly affect all commercial vessels that harvest black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, schoolmaster and/or golden tilefish under the FMP. The removal of the four snapper-grouper species discussed in this final rule will not directly apply to or affect charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) businesses. Any impact to the profitability or competitiveness of for-hire fishing businesses will be the result of changes in for-hire angler demand and will therefore be indirect in nature. Currently, federally permitted charter and headboat captains and crew can retain black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, schoolmaster and golden tilefish under the recreational bag limit; however, they cannot sell these fish. As such, charter and headboat captains and crew will only be affected as recreational anglers. The RFA does not consider recreational anglers, who will be directly affected by this final rule, to be small entities, so they are outside the scope of this analysis and only the effects on commercial vessels were analyzed.

As of April 27, 2016, there were 553 vessels with valid or renewable Federal South Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited permits, 116 vessels with valid or renewable 225-lb (102-kg) trip-limited permits and 22 vessels with valid or renewable longline endorsements for golden tilefish. Data from the years of 2009 through 2013, supplemented by partial 2014 data, were used in Amendment 35, as well as the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and this data provided the basis for the Council's decision. Although all commercial snapper-grouper permit holders have the opportunity to fish for black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and/or schoolmaster, on average, there were only four federally permitted vessels identified from 2009 through 2013 that commercially landed one or more of these species each year. The average annual vessel-level revenue for all species harvested by these four vessels over this period was approximately $101,000 (2013 dollars), of which $32 was from black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and/or schoolmaster. During the same time period, on average, 22 vessels per year commercially harvested golden tilefish using longline gear and their annual average vessel-level revenue for all species was approximately $95,000 (2013 dollars), of which $55,000 was from golden tilefish. Thirty-seven vessels, on average (2009 through 2013), commercially harvested golden tilefish exclusively with non-longline gear and they earned an average of approximately $46,000 (2013 dollars) per vessel for all species harvested, of which $2,000 was from golden tilefish.

No other small entities that will be directly affected by this final rule have been identified.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the vessels directly regulated by this final rule are believed to be small entities based on the SBA size criteria.

There are currently 669 vessels eligible to fish for the snapper-grouper species managed under the FMP. Based on the analysis included in the IRFA, NMFS expects only 63 of them will be affected by this final rule (approximately 9 percent). Because all of these commercial fishing businesses are believed to be small entities, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.

Amendment 35 and this final rule remove black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP and the regulations. The state of Florida will subsequently extend its management of these species into Federal waters off Florida, for Florida-state registered vessels. Average revenues per vessel from 2009 through 2013 for these four snapper-grouper species accounted for less than 1 percent of average total revenues received by the vessels that commercially harvested these species. Almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) of these species occurs in state and Federal waters off the coast of south Florida. The level of harvest of these species is not expected to change under management by the state of Florida, thus no reduction in associated ex-vessel revenue or profit is expected from this final rule.

This final rule will also modify the golden tilefish longline endorsement regulations. Vessels that have Federal commercial snapper-grouper permits with golden tilefish longline endorsements, specifically those that harvest golden tilefish using both longline and hook-and-line gear, are expected to be negatively affected by this action because they will no longer be able to harvest golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line commercial quota. This will result in reduced revenues if they are unable to substitute the harvest of other species. A total of four vessels were identified in 2014 that had a valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsement during some part of the year and also harvested golden tilefish under the hook-and-line 500-lb (227-kg) commercial trip limit. On average, these four vessels earned an estimated $8,142 (2013 dollars) per vessel from golden tilefish landings using hook-and-line gear in 2014. This accounts for approximately 9.2 percent of their average total revenue per vessel (2009 through 2013). Therefore, assuming no substitution of other species and constant prices, this final rule is expected to result in an estimated recurring annual loss of $8,142 (2013 dollars) per vessel for the four vessels that harvested golden tilefish using both longline and hook-and-line gear. Conversely, vessels that do not have longline endorsements are expected to indirectly benefit from this final rule, because they will no longer have to compete with longline endorsement holders under the hook-and-line quota. On average, the 37 non-longline endorsement holders identified earlier in this analysis are expected to experience an annual per-vessel increase in revenue of approximately $880 (2013 dollars) or less than 2 percent of their annual average vessel-level revenue.

The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council. Only actions that would have direct economic effects on small entities merit inclusion in the following discussion.

Five alternatives were considered to remove species from the FMP. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain all current species in the FMP and would not be expected to have any economic effects. Under the no action alternative, species that do not require Federal management would remain in the FMP and potential cost savings and/or efficiency gains of management would go unrealized. All of the other alternatives were selected as preferred and will result in the removal of black snapper, dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and schoolmaster from Federal management.

Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for modifying the golden tilefish endorsement regulations. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not be expected to have any economic effects. The current golden tilefish endorsement regulations are, however, contrary to the original intent of the Council and unintentionally limit golden tilefish harvest opportunities and economic benefits for hook-and-line fishermen. The second alternative would revise the golden tilefish endorsement regulations so that any vessel with a valid or renewable Federal longline endorsement would not be permitted to harvest golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota. Under the second alternative, longline endorsement holders that operate more than one vessel (with a Federal snapper-grouper vessel permit) would be able to transfer their golden tilefish longline endorsement to a different vessel and then continue to fish for golden tilefish under the hook-and-line quota in a single year. Only one vessel exhibited this behavior in 2014. Under the second alternative, the negative economic effects on the longline endorsement holders would be less than that expected through this final rule, as would the positive effects experienced by the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the original Council intent of establishing the longline endorsement in Amendment 18B, which was that vessels with a golden tile longline endorsement would not be eligible to fish for golden tilefish under the hook-and-line gear quota.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all interested parties.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

Acceptable biological catch, Annual catch limit, Commercial trip limit, Fisheries, Fishing, Quotas, Snapper-grouper, South Atlantic, Species table.

Dated: May 18, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. In part 622, remove “allowable biological catch” and add in its place “acceptable biological catch” wherever it occurs. 3. In § 622.185, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
§ 622.185 Size limits.

(a) * * *

(3) Blackfin, cubera, gray, queen, silk, and yellowtail snappers—12 inches (30.5 cm), TL.

4. In § 622.191, the second sentence in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
§ 622.191 Commercial trip limits.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * * Vessels that have valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsements any time during the fishing year, are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.

5. In § 622.193, paragraphs (h) and (p) are revised to read as follows:
§ 622.193 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

(h) Deep-water complex (including yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper)—(1) Commercial sector—(i) If commercial landings for the deep-water complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 131,268 lb (59,542 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of deep-water complex species is prohibited and harvest or possession of these species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

(ii) If commercial landings exceed the ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 169,896 lb (77,064 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

(2) Recreational sector. (i) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, as estimated by the SRD, are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 38,628 lb (17,521 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year, unless the RA determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits are zero.

(ii) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 169,896 lb (77,064 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. When NMFS reduces the length of the following recreational fishing season and closes the recreational sector, the following closure provisions apply: The bag and possession limits for the deep-water complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. Additionally, the recreational ACL will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The fishing season and recreational ACL will not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.

(p) Other snappers complex (including cubera snapper, gray snapper, and lane snapper)—(1) Commercial sector—(i) If commercial landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the complex commercial ACL of 344,575 lb (156,297 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to close the commercial sector for this complex for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of cubera snapper, gray snapper, and lane snapper is prohibited, and harvest or possession of any of these species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

(ii) If commercial landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the commercial ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 1,513,883 lb (686,686 kg), round weight, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the other snappers complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

(2) Recreational sector—(i) If recreational landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the recreational ACL of 1,169,308 lb (530,391 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year regardless if any stock in the other snappers complex is overfished, unless NMFS determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits for any species in the other snappers complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero.

(ii) If recreational landings for the other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings, and if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season and the recreational ACL by the amount of the recreational ACL overage, if at least one of the species in the other snappers complex is overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL of 1,513,883 lb (686,686 kg), round weight, is exceeded during the same fishing year. NMFS will use the best scientific information available to determine if reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and recreational ACL is necessary. When the recreational sector is closed as a result of NMFS reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and the ACL, the bag and possession limits for any species in the other snappers complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero.

6. In Appendix A to part 622, Table 4 is revised to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 622—Species Tables Table 4 of Appendix A to Part 622—South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Balistidae—Triggerfishes Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus Carangidae—Jacks Bar jack, Caranx ruber Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata Almaco jack, Seriola rivoliana Banded rudderfish, Seriola zonata Ephippidae—Spadefishes Spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber Haemulidae—Grunts Margate, Haemulon album Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum Sailor's choice, Haemulon parrai White grunt, Haemulon plumieri Labridae—Wrasses Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus Lutjanidae—Snappers Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus Gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens Malacanthidae—Tilefishes Blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps Golden tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri Percichthyidae—Temperate basses Wreckfish, Polyprion americanus Serranidae—Groupers Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis Graysby, Epinephelus cruentatus Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus Coney, Epinephelus fulvus Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara Red grouper, Epinephelus morio Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa Serranidae—Sea Basses: Black sea bass, Centropristis striata Sparidae—Porgies Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado Saucereye porgy, Calamus calamus Whitebone porgy, Calamus leucosteus Knobbed porgy, Calamus nodosus Red porgy, Pagrus pagrus Scup, Stenotomus chrysops The following species are designated as ecosystem component species: Cottonwick, Haemulon melanurum Bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus Rock sea bass, Centropristis philadelphica Longspine porgy, Stenotomus caprinus Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis sufflamen
[FR Doc. 2016-12077 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
81 99 Monday, May 23, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-164-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300B4-203 and A300B4-2C airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by cracks found on pylon side panels (upper section) at rib 8. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for crack indications of the pylon side panels, a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to confirm any crack indications, modification of the pylon side panels, and repetitive inspections and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pylon side panels. Such cracking could result in pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.

DATES:

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; 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.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-164-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0201, dated October 7, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300B4-203 and A300B4-2C airplanes. The MCAI states:

Cracks were found on pylon side panels (upper section) at rib 8 on Airbus A300, A310 and A300-600 aeroplanes equipped with General Electric engines. Investigation of these findings indicated that this problem was likely to also affect aeroplanes of this type design with other engine installations.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced strength of the pylon primary structure, possibly resulting in pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.

Prompted by these findings, EASA issued AD 2008-0181 [which corresponded to FAA AD 2010-06-04, Amendment 39-16228 (75 FR 11428, March 11, 2010; corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23572))] to require repetitive detailed visual inspections and, depending on aeroplane configuration and/or findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Since that [EASA] AD 2008-0181 was issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the risk for these aeroplanes is higher than initially determined and consequently, the threshold and interval were reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Consequently, EASA AD 2013-0136 was published to supersede EASA AD 2008-0181 and to require the inspections to be accomplished within reduced thresholds and intervals. Afterwards, [EASA] AD 2013-0136 was mistakenly revised [EASA AD 2013-0136R1 corresponds to FAA AD 2015-26-06, Amendment 39-18354 (81 FR January 14,2016)] to reduce the Applicability, because it was considered at the time that aeroplanes on which Airbus mod 03599 was embodied, were not concerned by the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0136.

Since EASA AD 2013-0136R1 was issued, a more thorough analysis determined that post-mod 03599 aeroplanes could be affected by this unsafe condition after all.

[During] further deeper review, a list of nineteen A300 aeroplanes was identified as missing in the [EASA] AD 2013-0136R1 applicability, (aeroplanes post-mod 03599).

For the reasons described above this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0136R1 and mandates these requirements for the 19 missing A300 aeroplanes MSNs.

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-2016-6671.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for crack indications of the pylons, a HFEC inspection to confirm cracking, modification of the pylon side panels, and repairs if cracks are found.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-54-0081, dated August 11, 1993. This service information describes installation of a doubler on the left pylon 1 and right pylon 2, on pylon side panels (upper section) at Rib 8.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletin

Unlike the procedures described in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015, this proposed AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected in the pylon or pylon side panels. We have determined that because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked pylon or pylon side panel must be repaired or modified before further flight. This difference has been coordinated with EASA.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection of the pylon side panels 30 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,550 per inspection cycle $2,550 per inspection cycle $10,200 per inspection cycle.

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this repair.

On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Crack Repair 56 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,760 per repair $3,910 per repair $8,670 per repair. Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-164-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by July 7, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A300B4-203 and A300B4-2C airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 210, 212, 218, 220, 227, 234, 235, 236, 239, 247, 255, 256, 259, 261, 274, 277, 292, 299, and 302.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by cracks found on pylon side panels (upper section) at rib 8. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pylon side panels. Such cracking could result in pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Detailed Inspection of Pylons and Corrections

At the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015: Do a detailed inspection for crack indications of the pylons 1 and 2 side panels (upper section) at rib 8, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.

(h) Crack Confirmation

If any crack indication is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to confirm the crack, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.

(i) Follow-On Actions for No Crack/Indication

If the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals no crack indication, or if the HFEC inspection specified by paragraph (h) of this AD confirms no crack: Do the actions specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.

(1) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.

(2) At the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0081, dated August 11, 1993: Modify the pylons, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin 300-54-0081, dated August 11, 1993. Thereafter, repeat the HFEC inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD at the applicable interval specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015, and repair any crack before further flight 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).

(j) Follow-On Actions for Crack Findings

If any crack is confirmed during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD.

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, dated August 11, 1993, which was incorporated by referenced in AD 2010-06-04, Amendment 39-16228 (75 FR 11428, March 11, 2010); corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23572).

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 01, dated November 9, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 02, dated June 26, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 03, dated March 27, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; 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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0201, dated October 7, 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-2016-6671.

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 11, 2016. Suzanne Masterson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11681 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 882 and 895 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1111] Banned Devices; Proposal To Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices Used To Treat Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule that appeared in the Federal Register of April 25, 2016. In the proposed rule, FDA requested comments for a ban on electrical stimulation devices (ESDs) used for self-injurious or aggressive behavior (SIB or AB). The Agency is taking this action in response to requests for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES:

FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule published April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24386). Submit either electronic or written comments by July 25, 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-N-1111 for “Proposal to Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices Used to Treat Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior.” 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:

Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016, FDA published a proposed rule with a 30-day comment period to request comments on a proposal to ban ESDs used for SIB or AB. Comments on the proposed ban will inform FDA's rulemaking.

The Agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule. Each request conveyed concern that the current 30-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the proposed rule.

FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the proposed rule for 60 days, until July 25, 2016. The Agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on this important issue.

Dated: May 17, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-12026 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 30 CFR Part 550 [Docket ID: BOEM-2013-0081] RIN 1010-AD82 Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance AGENCY:

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; notice of extension of public comment period.

SUMMARY:

BOEM is extending the public comment period to submit comments on the proposed rule entitled “Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance,” which was published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2016. The original public comment period to submit comments on this rulemaking would have ended on June 6, 2016. However, BOEM has received public comments requesting an extension of the comment period. BOEM has reviewed the extension requests and has determined that a 14-day comment period extension to June 20, 2016, is appropriate. The proposed rule specified a separate, shorter period to submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget on the information collection (IC) burden in this rulemaking. That comment period ended on May 5, 2016, and will not be extended.

DATES:

The comment period for comments on the substance of the proposed rule published on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19717), has been extended. Written comments must be received by the extended due date of June 20, 2016. BOEM may not fully consider comments received after this date.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by the number 1010-AD82, by any of the following methods:

Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Mail: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation and Analysis, Attention: Peter Meffert, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166.

Hand delivery: Front Desk, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation and Analysis, Attention: Peter Meffert, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166.

Public Availability of Comments: BOEM does not consider anonymous comments; please include your name and address as part of your submittal. Before including your name, address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation and Analysis, at [email protected] or mail to 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166; or call (703) 787-1610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BOEM published a proposed rule on Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance on April 5, 2016. The proposed rule is intended to revise and replace BOEM's air quality regulations with a new set of regulations that reflect a number of policy changes with respect to the existing air quality regulatory program. The key policy changes in the proposed rule relate to: (1) Fulfilling BOEM's statutory responsibility under section 5(a)(8) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act by addressing all relevant criteria and major precursor air pollutants and by cross-referencing the ambient air quality standards and benchmarks (AAQSB) for those pollutants to those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (2) formalizing the concept and application of the term “attributed emissions”; (3) changing the methods for determining the locations from which air emissions will be measured and evaluated; (4) modifying the process by which emission exemption threshold (EETs) are established and updated; (5) changing the circumstances when emission reduction measures (ERM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), are required, and establishing new criteria for the application of ERM; (6) revising the boundary at which BOEM determines air quality compliance to the State seaward boundary (SSB), rather than the coastline; (7) formalizing requirements for the consolidation of emissions from multiple facilities; (8) consistent with BOEM's existing regulatory authority, articulating a schedule for ensuring that plans, including previously approved plans, will be compliant with these updated regulations; (9) adding an air quality component to the submission of right-of-use and easement, right-of-way, and lease term pipeline applications; (10) expanding use of the offsets as an alternative in circumstances where BACT was previously required; and (11) adding a new requirement for all plans to be reviewed at least every 10 years, to ensure ongoing compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as amended from time to time.

After publication of the proposed rule, BOEM received public comments requesting an extension.

On March 17, 2016, BOEM issued a press release to notify the public that the proposed rule would be issued and provided an internet link to an advance copy of the proposed rule. On April 5, 2016, BOEM issued the proposed rule with a requirement to submit comments on the substance of this rulemaking by June 6, 2016. BOEM is extending the comment period to June 20, 2016. With more than 90 days of public inspection, BOEM has concluded that interested parties will have sufficient opportunity to analyze the proposed rule and provide comment. Accordingly, written comments on the substance of this rulemaking must be submitted by the extended due date of June 20, 2016.

The proposed rule specified a separate, shorter period to submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget on the information collection (IC) burden in this rulemaking. That comment period ended on May 5, 2016, and will not be extended.

Dated: May 17, 2016. Amanda C. Leiter, Acting Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 2016-12099 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0289; FRL-9946-68-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance Plan AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire that contains an ozone maintenance plan for New Hampshire's former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act requires that areas that are designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and also had been previously designated either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1-hour ozone standard, develop a plan showing how the state will maintain the ozone standard for the area. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of New Hampshire's maintenance plan. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before June 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0289 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:

Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-02, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1047, fax number (617) 918-0047, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

Dated: May 4, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-11966 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 62 [Docket ID: FEMA-2016-0012] RIN 1660-AA86 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is proposing to remove the copy of the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement and the summary of the Financial Control Plan from the appendices of its National Flood Insurance Program regulations, as it is no longer necessary or appropriate to retain a contract, agreement, or any other arrangement between FEMA and private insurance companies in the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before July 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID: FEMA-2016-0012, by one of the following methods:

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

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

If you submit a comment, identify the agency name and the docket ID for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, or delivery to the address under the ADDRESSES section. Please submit your comments and material by only one means.

Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal e-Rulemaking 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 read the Privacy Act notice that is available via a link on the homepage of http://www.regulations.gov.

Viewing comments and documents: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Background documents and submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, Room 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

II. Background

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), authorizes the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish and carry out a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to enable interested persons to purchase insurance against loss resulting from physical damage to or loss of real or personal property arising from flood in the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 4011(a). The NFIA states the NFIP is intended to be “a program of flood insurance with large-scale participation of the Federal Government and carried out to the maximum extent practicable by the private insurance industry.” See 42 U.S.C. 4001(b). Under the NFIA, FEMA has the authority to carry out the NFIP through the facilities of the Federal government, utilizing, for the purposes of providing flood insurance coverage, insurance companies and other insurers, insurance agents and brokers, and insurance adjustment organizations, as fiscal agents of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 4071.

Pursuant to this authority, FEMA works closely with the insurance industry to facilitate the sale and servicing of flood insurance policies. An NFIP flood insurance policy, also known as the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP), can be purchased: (1) Directly from the Federal government through a direct servicing agent, or (2) from a participating Write Your Own (WYO) insurance company through the WYO Program. The SFIPs set out the terms and conditions of insurance. See 44 CFR part 61, Appendix A. FEMA establishes terms, rate structures, and premium costs of SFIPs. The terms, coverage limits, and flood insurance premiums are the same whether purchased from the NFIP Direct or the WYO Program.

FEMA established the WYO Program in 1983 to increase the NFIP policy count and geographic distribution of policies by taking advantage of the private insurance industry's marketing channels and existing policy base to sell flood insurance. See 48 FR 46789 (Oct. 14, 1983) (establishing the WYO Program). Seventy-nine private property or casualty insurance companies participate in this program today.1

1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Write Your Own Flood Insurance Company List, http://www.fema.gov/wyo_company (last accessed April 8, 2016).

The NFIA authorizes FEMA to “enter into any contracts, agreements, or other arrangements” with private insurance companies to utilize their facilities and services in administering the NFIP, and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. See 42 U.S.C. 4081(a). Pursuant to this authority, FEMA enters into a standard Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement) with private sector property insurers, also known as the WYO Companies, to sell NFIP flood insurance policies under their own names and adjust and pay claims arising under the SFIP. Each Arrangement entered into by a WYO Company must be in the form and substance of the standard Arrangement, a copy of which is in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A. See 44 CFR 62.23(a). The standard Arrangement specifies the terms and conditions of utilizing the WYO Companies' facilities and services to carry out the NFIP. Each year, FEMA publishes in the Federal Register2 and makes available to the WYO Companies the terms for subscription or re-subscription to the Arrangement. See Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement, Article V(B). Under the Arrangement, participating WYO companies offer flood insurance coverage under the NFIP to eligible applicants, and write and service the SFIP in their own names. WYO Companies are responsible for all aspects of servicing of the policies, including policy issuance to new policyholders, endorsement, underwriting, renewal of policies, and cancellation of policies. WYO Companies are also responsible for compliance with community eligibility/rating criteria, making policyholder eligibility determinations, correspondence, and the payment of agents' commissions. The WYO Companies also investigate, adjust, settle, and defend all claims or losses arising from policies issued under the Arrangement. In addition, under the Arrangement, WYO Companies market flood insurance policies in a manner consistent with marketing guidelines established by FEMA. The WYO Companies are required to meet the requirements of a Financial Control Plan (see below for explanation of the Financial Control Plan), and submit to FEMA monthly Financial Reporting and Statistical Transaction reports.

2See, e.g., 80 FR 46313 (Aug. 4, 2015).

In accordance with the Arrangement, WYO Companies retain a specific amount of policyholder premium for their operating and administrative expenses, for a commission allowance to meet commission or salaries of insurance agents, brokers, or other entities producing qualified flood insurance applications, and other related expenses. FEMA also reimburses WYO Companies for certain unallocated, allocated, and special allocated loss adjustment expenses as provided for in the Arrangement.

The Arrangement includes an arbitration provision applicable if any misunderstanding or dispute arises between FEMA and a WYO Company with reference to any factual issue under any provision of the Arrangement or with respect to FEMA's non-renewal of the Company's participation. The Arrangement also includes provisions related to information and annual statements, access to books and records, cash management and accounting, offset, errors and omissions, terms for the commencement and termination of the Arrangement, and other miscellaneous provisions.

Since the primary relationship between the Federal government and the WYO Companies is one of a fiduciary nature (that is, to ensure that any taxpayer funds are appropriately expended), FEMA established “A Plan to Maintain Financial Control for Business Written Under the Write Your Own Program,” also known as the “Financial Control Plan.” See 42 U.S.C. 4071; 44 CFR 62.23(f), Part 62, App. B. To ensure financial and statistical control over the NFIP, as part of the Arrangement WYO companies agree to adhere to the standards and requirements in the Financial Control Plan. The Financial Control Plan includes standards and requirements for financial, underwriting, and other audits of participating WYO companies. Reconciliation procedures for the Transaction Record Reporting and Processing (TRRP) Plan are also outlined in the Financial Control Plan, in addition to other financial controls, such as the Claims Reinspection Program, report certifications and signature authorizations, and operation review procedures.

In 1985, FEMA added a copy of the Financial Control Plan to the NFIP regulations at 44 CFR part 62, Appendix B. However, in 1999, FEMA removed the copy of the Financial Control Plan from the regulations and replaced it with a summary, thus allowing the Federal government and its industry partners the flexibility to make operational adjustments and corrections more efficiently and more quickly while retaining the broad framework necessary for sound financial controls. See 64 FR 56174 (Oct. 18, 1999).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

In this rule, FEMA proposes to remove the copy of the Arrangement in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A, and the summary of the Financial Control Plan in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix B. In addition, FEMA proposes to make conforming amendments to update citations to these appendices in Section 62.23.

1. Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement: 44 CFR Part 62, Appendix A

FEMA proposes to remove the copy of the Arrangement in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A, because it is no longer necessary to include a copy of the Arrangement in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and the NFIA does not require FEMA to include a copy of the Arrangement in the CFR. See 42 U.S.C. 4081. In 1985, FEMA added a copy of the Arrangement to the appendix of 44 CFR part 62 to inform the public of the procedural details of the WYO program. See 50 FR 16236 (April 25, 1985). However, since that time, there have been technological advances for disseminating information to the public, and there are now more efficient ways to inform the public of the procedural details of the WYO program. For example, FEMA now posts a copy of the Arrangement on its Web site.3 Moreover, after more than thirty years of operation, the public is more familiar with the procedural details of the WYO Program and the flood insurance provided through WYO Companies than it was in 1985, after only two years of operation. Additionally, FEMA proposes to remove the copy of the Arrangement in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A, because it is inappropriate to codify in regulation a contract, agreement, or other arrangement between FEMA and private insurance companies.

3 FEMA, WYO Company Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement, http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/17972?id=4054 (last accessed April 8, 2016).

By removing the copy of the Arrangement from the appendix of Part 62, FEMA and its industry partners maintain the flexibility to negotiate operational adjustments and corrections to the Arrangement more quickly and efficiently. Because a copy of the Arrangement is currently in the CFR, FEMA must undergo rulemaking to update the Arrangement. Since 1985, when FEMA added a copy of the Arrangement to the CFR, FEMA has undergone rulemaking approximately 21 times to make corrections and updates to the Arrangement. Although the rulemaking process plays an important role in agency policymaking, when this process is not required or necessary, the requirement to undergo rulemaking can unnecessarily slow down the operation of the NFIP by FEMA and its industry partners and can result in the use of alternate, less than ideal measures that result in business and operational inefficiencies.

For example, under Article II(C) of the Arrangement, following a catastrophic event, WYO companies agreed to adjust combined flood and wind losses utilizing one adjuster under the NFIP-approved Single Adjuster Program (SAP) using procedures issued by FEMA. This practice proved functionally impractical. Rather than undergo rulemaking to remove the SAP requirement from the Arrangement, since 2012 FEMA has granted a limited waiver of this requirement, pursuant to FEMA's waiver authority in Section 62.23(k) of FEMA's regulations. FEMA communicated the exceptions to and under Section 62.23(k) through WYO Bulletins.4 This may cause confusion for NFIP stakeholders and the general public because the copy of the Arrangement in the CFR does not reflect those updates. Once FEMA removes the copy of the Arrangement from the CFR, however, FEMA can make changes such as removal of the revisions to the SAP requirement before the beginning of the next Arrangement period, without engaging in rulemaking and without workarounds such as FEMA's limited waiver authority. In addition, FEMA would be able to implement updates and corrections more efficiently, and would have the flexibility to negotiate longer Arrangement terms; currently, the Arrangement is signed and in effect for a one-year period, but in the future, FEMA could offer an Arrangement term for a two- or three-year period. FEMA also recognizes that insurance industry practices and technology evolve at a fast pace, providing efficiencies and customer-centric innovations that can streamline and improve the financial stability and customer focus of the NFIP. FEMA would be able to implement changes to the NFIP to take advantage of innovations and technology changes in an efficient and timely manner.

4 See FEMA, Memorandum For: WYO Principal Coordinators and the NFIP Direct Servicing Agent, Granting a Limited Waiver for Insurance Companies Participating in the WYO Program of the SAP found in 44 CFR Pt. 62, App. A, Article II, Section C, Paragraphs 1-3—FEMA, Federal Insurance Administration—Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement, W-12050 (Aug. 13, 2012); FEMA, Memorandum For: WYO Principal Coordinators and the NFIP Direct Servicing Agent, Granting an extension of the Limited Waiver for Insurance Companies Participating in the WYO Program of the SAP found in 44 CFR Pt. 62, App. A, Article II, Section C, Paragraphs 1-3—FEMA, Federal Insurance Administration—Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement and Revised Wording, W-13040 (July 9, 2013); FEMA, Memorandum For: WYO Principal Coordinators and the NFIP Direct Servicing Agent, Extension of the Limited Waiver of the SAP, W-14051 (Sept. 10, 2014); FEMA, Memorandum For: WYO Company Principal Coordinators and the NFIP Direct Servicing Agent, Extension of the Limited Waiver of the SAP,W-15044 (Sept. 17, 2015).

Once a copy of the Arrangement is removed from the CFR, FEMA will continue to enter into the Arrangement with WYO Companies, and in accordance with the terms of the current Arrangement, FEMA will continue to notify private insurance companies and make available to companies the terms for subscription or re-subscription of the Arrangement through a notice in the Federal Register. See Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement, Article V(B). As is current practice, all private insurance companies wishing to participate in the WYO Program should request subscription or re-subscription in accordance with the instructions in the Federal Register notice published before each fiscal year. See 80 FR 46313 (Aug. 4, 2015). FEMA evaluates requests from private insurance companies to participate using publicly available information, industry performance data, and other criteria outlined in FEMA's regulations and in the Arrangement. FEMA will also continue to send a copy of the offer for the Arrangement each fiscal year, together with related materials and submission instructions, to all private insurance companies successfully evaluated by the NFIP.

Under the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12), FEMA is required to issue a rule to formulate revised expense reimbursements to property and casualty insurance companies participating in the WYO Program for their expenses servicing standard flood insurance policies, including how such companies shall be reimbursed in both catastrophic and non-catastrophic years. Sec. 100224, Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 936. FEMA is in the process of developing this rulemaking and will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in the future.

2. A Plan To Maintain Financial Control for Business Written Under the Write Your Own Program: 44 CFR Part 62, Appendix B

FEMA proposes to remove the summary of the Financial Control Plan in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix B. As discussed, beginning in 1985, FEMA included a copy of the Financial Control Plan in regulation at 44 CFR part 62, Appendix B. In 1999 FEMA removed the copy of the Financial Control Plan from FEMA's regulations and replaced it with a summary of the Financial Control Plan. 64 FR 56174 (Oct. 18, 1999). FEMA proposes to remove the summary of the Financial Control Plan in Appendix B because this information is contained in either FEMA's Financial Control Plan,5 or in 44 CFR Section 62.23, and thus reprint elsewhere in the CFR is duplicative and unnecessary.

5 See, National Flood Insurance Program, The Write Your Own Program Financial Control Plan Requirements and Procedures (1999), http://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/manuals/fcp99jc.pdf (last accessed April 8, 2016).

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Appendix B contain a general overview of the Arrangement and the Financial Control Plan. FEMA is removing this information from Appendix B because this information is also contained in the Arrangement, the Financial Control Plan, and FEMA's regulations at Section 62.23, and is therefore duplicative and unnecessary. Paragraph (c) of Appendix B describes the roles and responsibilities of the Standards Committee. FEMA is removing this information from Appendix B because this information describes internal procedural details of the Standards Committee, which do not need to be in regulation. In addition, paragraph (c) contains information related to the Standards Committee that is already codified in FEMA's regulations at Section 62.23 and in FEMA's Financial Control Plan. As a result, FEMA proposes to remove this information from Appendix B because it is duplicative and unnecessary. In paragraphs (d) and (e) of Appendix B, there is the Financial Control Plan Table of Contents, and information on where to obtain a copy of the Financial Control Plan. FEMA is removing this information from Appendix B because a copy of the Financial Control Plan is available on FEMA's Web site, and the NFIA does not require this information to be in regulation.

3. Amendments to 44 CFR 62.23 To Remove Reference to Appendices A and B

FEMA proposes to make conforming amendments to the language in 44 CFR 62.23 where FEMA references Appendix A and Appendix B of 44 CFR part 62, because those appendices will be removed. In paragraphs (a) and (i)(1) of Section 62.23, FEMA proposes to remove reference to Appendix A, because FEMA proposes to remove the copy of the Arrangement in Appendix A. In addition, in paragraphs (f) and (l)(2) of Section 62.23, FEMA proposes to remove reference to Appendix B, because FEMA proposes to remove the summary of the Financial Control Plan in Appendix B.

Lastly, FEMA proposes to remove the example in Section 62.23(i)(1) which references the SAP. As discussed above, FEMA has granted a limited waiver of the SAP requirement, and this example is no longer relevant. In addition, the example references Appendix A, which FEMA is proposing to remove via this notice of proposed rulemaking.

IV. Regulatory Analysis a. Executive Order 12866, as Amended, Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 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 section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

FEMA is issuing a proposed rule that would remove Appendix A and B from part 62 of 44 CFR. These Appendices contain a copy of the WYO Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement) and a summary of the “Plan to Maintain Financial Control for Business Written Under the Write Your Own Program” (Financial Control Plan), respectively. In addition, FEMA proposes to make conforming amendments to update citations to these appendices in Section 62.23.

Since 1983, FEMA has entered into a standard Arrangement with WYO companies to sell NFIP insurance policies under their own names and adjust and pay SFIP claims.6 Since 1985, a copy of the Arrangement has been in FEMA regulations. FEMA has made frequent changes to the Arrangement, and underwent rulemaking approximately 21 times to update the copy of the Arrangement in the regulations. Its placement in the CFR is not required by statute, and is redundant and unnecessary.

6 As of April 2016, 79 private property or casualty insurance companies participate in the Write Your Own program. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Write Your Own Flood Insurance Company List, http://www.fema.gov/wyo_company (last accessed April 8, 2016).

FEMA proposes to remove the copy of the Arrangement in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A, because the NFIA does not require FEMA to include a copy of the Arrangement in the CFR, and therefore, it is no longer necessary. In 1985, FEMA added a copy of the Arrangement to the regulations to inform the public of the procedural details of the WYO Program. However, since that time there have been technological advances for disseminating information to the public, and there are now more efficient ways to inform the public of the procedural details of the WYO Program. For example, FEMA now posts a copy of the Arrangement on its Web site. This serves the purpose of promoting awareness and disseminating program information, without needing to go through the rulemaking process. This rulemaking does not impose any changes to the current Arrangement with WYO Companies; FEMA believes there would not be any costs imposed on participating WYO companies as a result of this proposed rule. FEMA would continue to enter into the Arrangement with WYO companies, and make available the terms for subscription or re-subscription through Federal Register notice. In addition, FEMA would continue to place a copy of the Arrangement on its Web site to inform the public of the procedural details of the WYO program, and engage in negotiation with WYO companies on the terms of the Arrangement.

One of the benefits associated with this rule is enhanced flexibility for FEMA and its industry partners to negotiate operational adjustments to the Arrangement more quickly and efficiently in order to be more responsive to the needs of industry partners and the operation of the NFIP. Additionally there is less confusion generated from inconsistences that result from current practice. Finally, the elimination of the administrative burden that accompanies repeated updates to the CFR and any posted departures from the CFR onto FEMA's Web site regarding Program requirements are an additional benefit. FEMA believes there would be no economic impact associated with implementing the proposed rule.

Additionally, we are proposing to remove a summary of the Financial Control Plan; the plan itself was removed in 1985. FEMA does not anticipate any economic impacts from removing the summary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461; August 16, 2002) require agency review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FEMA does not believe this proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, FEMA is publishing this IRFA to aid the public in commenting on the potential small business impacts of the proposed requirements in this NPRM. FEMA invites all interested parties to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact on small entities that would result from the adoption of this NPRM. FEMA will consider all comments received in the public comment process when making a final determination.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an IFRA must contain: (1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is being considered; (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; (3) A description—and, where feasible, an estimate of the number—of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; (4) A description of the projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirements and the types of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and (6) A description of significant alternatives to the rule.

(1) A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered

FEMA proposes to remove the copy of the Arrangement, because it is no longer necessary to include a copy of the Arrangement in the CFR, and the NFIA does not require FEMA to include a copy of the Arrangement in the CFR. Moreover, by removing the copy of the Arrangement from the CFR, FEMA and its industry partners would benefit from enhanced flexibility to negotiate operational adjustments and corrections to the Arrangement more quickly and efficiently. FEMA proposes to remove the summary of the Financial Control Plan in the CFR because this information is contained in either FEMA's Financial Control Plan, or 44 CFR 62.23, and thus reprint elsewhere in the CFR is duplicative and unnecessary. Finally, FEMA proposes to make conforming amendments by removing the language in 44 CFR 62.23 where FEMA references Appendix A and Appendix B of 44 CFR part 62, for administrative efficiency because those appendices would be removed.

(2) A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

FEMA proposes to remove the copy of the Arrangement from the CFR, because the NFIA does not require FEMA to include a copy of the Arrangement in the CFR. FEMA proposes to remove the summary of the Financial Control Plan in the CFR because this information is contained in either FEMA's Financial Control Plan, or 44 CFR 62.23, and thus reprinting elsewhere in the CFR is duplicative and unnecessary. Finally, FEMA proposes to make conforming amendments to the language in 44 CFR 62.23 where FEMA references Appendix A and Appendix B of 44 CFR part 62, because those appendices would be removed.

The NFIA authorizes FEMA to “enter into any contracts, agreements, or other arrangements” with private insurance companies to utilize their facilities and services in administering the NFIP, and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. See 42 U.S.C. 4081. Pursuant to this authority, FEMA enters into a standard Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement) with private sector property insurers, also known as the WYO companies, to sell NFIP flood insurance policies under their own names and adjust and pay claims arising under the policy. Since the primary relationship between the Federal government and WYO Companies is one of a fiduciary nature, FEMA established the Financial Control Plan. See 42 U.S.C. 4071; 44 CFR 62.23(f), Part 62, App. B. The NFIA does not require FEMA to include a copy of the Arrangement or a summary of the Financial Control Plan in the CFR. It is in reference to these specific authorities to administer the NFIP, and the WYO program that is encompassed within it, that FEMA is proposing to continue to streamline operations and remove administrative hurdles to the effectiveness of these programs.

(3) A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

“Small entity” is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. The term “small entity” can have the same meaning as the terms “small business”, “small organization” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” Section 601(3) defines a “small business” as having the same meaning as “small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. This includes any small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. Section 601(4) defines a “small organization” as any not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated, and are not dominant in their field of operation. Section 601(5) defines small governmental jurisdictions as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000. No small organization or governmental jurisdiction are party to the WYO program and therefore would not be affected.

The SBA stipulates in its size standards the largest an insurance firm that is “for profit” may be and still be classified as a “small entity.” 7 The small business size standards for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 524126 (direct property and casualty insurance carriers) is 1,500 employees. The size standard for the four remaining applicable codes of 524210 (Insurance Agencies and Brokerages), 524113 (Direct Life Insurance Carriers), 524292 (Third Party Administration of Insurance and Pension Funds) and 524128 (Other Direct Insurance) is $7.0 million in revenue as modified by the SBA, effective February 26, 2016.

7 U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes effective February 26, 2016. Available at https://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards.

There are currently a total of 79 companies participating in the WYO Program; these 79 companies are subject to the terms of the Arrangement and the standards and requirements in the Financial Control Plan. FEMA researched each WYO company to determine the NAICS code, number of employees, and revenue for the individual companies. FEMA used the open-access database, www.manta.com, as well as www.cortera.com to find this information for the size determination. This was used as a metric of company size, compliant with the SBA thresholds based on the assigned NAICS code. Of the 79 WYO companies we found a majority of 53 firms were under code 524210 (Insurance Agencies and Brokerages), of which 20 firms or 38% were found to be small (with only one lacking full data but presumed to be small). The second largest contingent of 17 firms were under 524126 (direct property and casualty insurance carriers), of which 11 firms or 65% were found to be small (with only one missing data points but presumed to be small). Of the other three aforementioned industry codes, 524113, 524292 and 524128, there was one firm under each and none were small. Finally, six firms were specifically missing industry classifications, and FEMA believes that all but one are likely to be small. In total we found that a total of 36 of the 79 companies are below this maximum, and therefore would be considered small entities. Consequently, small entities comprise 46% of participating companies.

FEMA believes that the rule would impose no burdens on any participating company because it is removing a redundant section of the CFR and not substantively changing to the Arrangement or the Financial Control Plan itself. Therefore, FEMA does not anticipate that there would be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of this proposed rule.

(4) A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and the Types of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record

The proposed rule would not impose any compliance costs on WYO companies. The WYO Arrangement in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A is a copy of the Arrangement that FEMA enters into separately with each WYO Company. FEMA would continue to enter into the Arrangement with WYO Companies, and in accordance with the terms of the current Arrangement, FEMA would continue to notify private insurance companies and make available to companies the terms for subscription or re-subscription of the Arrangement through Federal Register Notice.

As the record of regulatory changes to the Arrangement shows, required changes will be implemented regardless of the regulatory process. Current channels of notification and negotiation would remain unaffected by this rule; the only thing that would change is the elimination of the administrative burden that would accompany these changes.

As part of the Arrangement, WYO companies agree to adhere to the standards and requirements in the Financial Control Plan. The Financial Control Plan has been removed from the regulations since 1985. Removing the summary would have no economic impact. FEMA does not believe this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(5) An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.

(6) A Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities

Given that this rule has no direct compliance costs, no less burdensome alternatives to the proposed rule are available. In the absence of this proposed rule, small entities would continue to experience the negative repercussions of inconsistences between the written Arrangement and updates that FEMA has communicated through bulletins to provide exceptions to certain parts. Small entities would also continue to experience burdens associated with alternate, less than ideal measures that have been implemented in lieu of updates to the Arrangement in the CFR.

FEMA invites all interested parties to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact that would result from adoption of the proposals in this NPRM. FEMA will consider all comments received in the public comment process.

b. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency “shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).” Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that “before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement” detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

c. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. an agency must prepare an environmental assessment and environmental impact statement for any rulemaking that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. FEMA has determined that this rulemaking does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and consequently has not prepared an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Although rulemaking is a major federal action subject to NEPA, the list of exclusion categories at 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) excludes the preparation, revision, and adoption of regulations from the preparation of an EA or EIS where the rule relates to actions that qualify for categorical exclusions. Administrative actions are categorically excluded from NEPA. 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(i). This is a rulemaking related to an administrative function. An environmental assessment will not be prepared because a categorical exclusion applies to this rulemaking and no extraordinary circumstances exist.

d. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as amended, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the agency obtains approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection and the collection displays a valid OMB control number. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507. This proposed rulemaking would call for no new collections of information under the PRA. The removal of the Arrangement from the regulation will not impact any existing information collections in that it would not substantively change any of the information collection requirements, because the information collection requirements still exist in the regulations. The existing information collections listed include citations to 44 CFR part 62 Appendices A and B. These citations will be updated in the next information collection renewal cycle. The WYO Companies will still be expected to comply with each of the information collection requirements associated with the WYO Program.

The collections associated with this regulation are as follows: (1) OMB Control Number 1660-0038, Write Your Own Company Participation Criteria, 44 CFR 62 Appendix A, which establishes the criteria to return to or participate in the WYO program; (2) OMB control number 1660-0086, the National Flood Insurance Program—Mortgage Portfolio Protection Program (MPPP), 44 CFR part 62.23 (l)(2) and Appendix B, which is a program lenders can use to bring their mortgage loan portfolios into compliance with flood insurance purchase requirements; and (3) OMB control number 1660-0020, WYO Program, 44 CFR 62.23 (f) and Appendix B, the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration program that requires each WYO Company to submit financial data on a monthly basis into the National Flood Insurance Program's Transaction Record Reporting and Processing Plan (TRRPP) system as referenced in 44 CFR 62.23(h)(4). Each of these collections are still required by Part 62 and will not be impacted by the removal of the Arrangement from the regulation because the existing information collections cover requirements in the regulations, not requirements in the Appendices.

e. Privacy Act/E-Government Act

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency must determine whether implementation of a proposed regulation will result in a system of records. A record is any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his/her education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his/her name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4). A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. An agency cannot disclose any record which is contained in a system of records except by following specific procedures.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501 note, also requires specific procedures when an agency takes action to develop or procure information technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information that is in an identifiable form. This Act also applies when an agency initiates a new collection of information that will be collected, maintained, or disseminated using information technology if it includes any information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual. A Privacy Threshold Analysis was completed. This rule does not require a Privacy Impact Analysis or System of Records Notice at this time.

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

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency regulations that have Tribal implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects 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. Under this Executive Order, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and that is not required by statute, unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the Indian Tribal government or the Tribe in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government, or the agency consults with Tribal officials.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications. Currently, Indian Tribal governments cannot participate in the WYO Program as WYO companies, and thus are not affected by this proposed rule. To participate in the WYO program, a company must be a licensed property or casualty insurance company and meet the requirements in FEMA regulations at 44 CFR 62.24.

g. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999, sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, 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. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action.

FEMA has reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and has determined that this rule does 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, and therefore does not have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications, because participation as a WYO Company is voluntary and does not affect State policymaking discretion. Moreover, currently, States cannot participate in the WYO Program as WYO companies, and thus are not affected by this proposed rule. To participate in the WYO program, a company must be a licensed property or casualty insurance company and meet the requirements in FEMA regulations at 44 CFR 62.24. In accordance with Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, FEMA determines that this rule will not have federalism implications sufficient to warrant the preparation of a federalism impact statement.

h. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, each agency is required to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. In carrying out these responsibilities, each agency must evaluate the potential effects of any actions it may take in a floodplain; to ensure that its planning programs and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and floodplain management; and to prescribe procedures to implement the policies and requirements of the Executive Order.

Before promulgating any regulation, an agency must determine whether the proposed regulations will affect a floodplain(s), and if so, the agency must consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplain(s). If the head of the agency finds that the only practicable alternative consistent with the law and with the policy set forth in Executive Order 11988 is to promulgate a regulation that affects a floodplain(s), the agency must, prior to promulgating the regulation, design or modify the regulation in order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain, consistent with the agency's floodplain management regulations and prepare and circulate a notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located in the floodplain. The changes proposed in this rule would not have an effect on land use, floodplain management, or wetlands.

i. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

Pursuant to Executive Order 11990, each agency must provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; and (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. Each agency, to the extent permitted by law, must avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds (1) that there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and (2) that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. In making this finding the head of the agency may take into account economic, environmental and other pertinent factors.

In carrying out the activities described in the Executive Order, each agency must consider factors relevant to a proposal's effect on the survival and quality of the wetlands. Among these factors are: Public health, safety, and welfare, including water supply, quality, recharge and discharge; pollution; flood and storm hazards; and sediment and erosion; maintenance of natural systems, including conservation and long term productivity of existing flora and fauna, species and habitat diversity and stability, hydrologic utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food and fiber resources; and other uses of wetlands in the public interest, including recreational, scientific, and cultural uses. The changes proposed in this rule would not have an effect on land use, floodplain management, or wetlands.

j. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, —Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994, as amended by Executive Order 12948, 60 FR 6381, February 1, 1995, FEMA incorporates environmental justice into its policies and programs. The Executive Order requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures that those programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in programs, denying persons the benefits of programs, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of race, color, or national origin.

This rulemaking will not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on human health or the environment. This rulemaking will not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on human health or the environment. Therefore the requirements of Executive Order 12898 do not apply to this rule.

k. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking

Under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801-808, before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating the rule must submit to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) a copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule, the proposed effective date of the rule, a copy of any cost-benefit analysis, descriptions of the agency's actions under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and any other information or statements required by relevant executive orders.

FEMA will send this rule to the Congress and to GAO pursuant to the CRA if the rule is finalized. The rule is not a major rule within the meaning of the CRA. It will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, it will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions, and it will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 62

Claims, Flood insurance, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Emergency Management Agency proposes to amend 44 CFR Chapter I as follows:

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

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

2. Amend § 62.23 by: a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (a); b. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (f); c. Revising paragraph (i)(1); and d. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (l)(2).
§ 62.23 [Amended]

(a), * * * Arrangements entered into by WYO Companies or other insurers under this subpart must be in the form and substance of the standard arrangement, titled “Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement.”

(f) * * * In furtherance of this end, the Federal Insurance Administrator has established “A Plan to Maintain Financial Control for Business Written Under the Write Your OwnProgram.” * * *

(i) * * *

(1) WYO Companies will adjust claims in accordance with general Company standards, guided by NFIP Claims manuals. The Arrangement provides that claim adjustments shall be binding upon the FIA.

(l) * * *

(2) * * * Participating WYO Companies must also maintain evidence of compliance with paragraph (l)(3) of this section for review during the audits and reviews required by the WYO Financial Control Plan.

Appendix A [Removed]
3. Remove Appendix A to Part 62. Appendix B [Removed] 4. Remove Appendix B to Part 62. Dated: May 12, 2016. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-11701 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-11-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board 49 CFR Part 1250 [Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 4)] United States Rail Service Issues—Performance Data Reporting AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation.

ACTION:

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document corrects the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR) served on April 29, 2016, and published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2016, (81 FR 27069), titled “United States Rail Service Issues—Performance Data Reporting.”

DATES:

The SNPR is corrected as of May 23, 2016. Comments on the SNPR are due by May 31, 2016. Reply comments are due by June 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison Davis at (202) 245-0378. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A corrected decision was served on May 13, 2016, and is available on the Surface Transportation Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov. In the corrected decision, the citation to 49 U.S.C. 721 in footnote 4 was corrected to 49 U.S.C. 722(c). On page 19, lines 4-5, the statement “all six of the Class I carriers” was corrected to “all seven of the Class I carriers.” In Table 1 on page 24, “60 or more railcars” was corrected to “50 or more railcars.” On page 30, Request No. 12, the statement “versus cars actually and on constructive placement” was corrected to “versus cars actually placed and on constructive placement.” A number of minor typographical errors were also corrected in the decision.

In the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking beginning on page 81 FR 27069 in the issue of May 5, 2016 of the Federal Register make the following corrections:

• In the preamble, on page 27070, in 1st column, in footnote 3, correct “49 U.S.C. 721” to read “49 U.S.C. 722(c)”.

• In the preamble, on page 27076, in the 3rd column, correct the statement “all six of the Class I carriers” to read “all seven of the Class I carriers.”

• In the preamble, on page 27079, in Table 1, on the 3rd line correct the statement “60 or more railcars” to “50 or more railcars.”

• In the amendatory language, on page 27081, in the 3rd column, in the proposed rule 49 CFR 1250.2(12)(ii) correct the statement “versus cars actually and on constructive placement” to “versus cars actually placed and on constructive placement.”

Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: May 13, 2016.

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

Kenyatta Clay, Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2016-11805 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 160301167-6167-01] RIN 0648-BF89 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2016 AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

NMFS proposes management measures for the 2016 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries. NMFS is also proposing a change to the commercial scup incidental possession limit, and two minor corrections to the summer flounder minimum mesh size regulations. The implementing regulations for these fisheries require NMFS to publish recreational measures for the fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of these measures is to constrain recreational catch to established limits and prevent overfishing of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass resources. The intent of the commercial scup regulatory change is to reduce unnecessary discards by allowing more incidentally caught scup to be retained by vessels. The regulatory corrections are intended to clarify the original purpose of the regulation.

DATES:

Comments must be received by 5 p.m. local time, on June 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0029, by either of the following methods:

Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

• Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0029,

• Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields

• Enter or attach your comments.

—OR—

Mail: Submit written comments to John Bullard, Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

Copies of the Supplemental Information Report (SIR) and other supporting documents for the recreational harvest measures are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The recreational harvest measures document is also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Scheimer, Fisheries Management Specialist, (978) 281-9236.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Background

The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively under the provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North Carolina northward to the U.S./Canada border, and scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3′ N. lat. (the approximate latitude of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina). States manage these three species within 3 nautical miles (4.83 km) of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The applicable species-specific Federal regulations govern vessels and individual fishermen fishing in Federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well as vessels possessing a summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass Federal charter/party vessel permit, regardless of where they fish.

Recreational Management Measures Background

The Council process for recommending recreational management measures to NMFS for rulemaking is generically described below. All meetings are open to the public and the materials utilized during such meetings, as well as any documents created to summarize the meeting results, are public information and posted on the Council's Web site (www.mafmc.org) or are available from the Council by request. Therefore, extensive background on the 2016 recreational management measures recommendation process is not repeated in this preamble.

The FMP established monitoring committees for the three fisheries, consisting of representatives from the Commission, the Council, state marine fishery agency representatives from Massachusetts to North Carolina, and NMFS. The FMP's implementing regulations require the monitoring committees to review scientific and other relevant information annually. The objective of this review is to recommend management measures to the Council that will constrain landings within the recreational harvest limits established for the three fisheries for the upcoming fishing year. The FMP limits the choices for the types of measures to minimum fish size, per angler possession limit, and fishing season.

The Council's Demersal Species Committee and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) then consider the monitoring committees' recommendations and any public comment in making their recommendations to the Council and the Commission, respectively. The Council reviews the recommendations of the Demersal Species Committee, makes its own recommendations, and forwards them to NMFS for review. The Commission similarly adopts recommendations for the states. NMFS is required to review the Council's recommendations to ensure that they are consistent with the targets specified for each species in the FMP and all applicable laws and Executive Orders before ultimately implementing measures for Federal waters. Commission measures are final at the time they are adopted.

In this rule, NMFS proposes management measures for the 2016 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries consistent with the recommendations of the Council. All minimum fish sizes discussed are total length measurements of the fish, i.e., the straight-line distance from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side. For black sea bass, total length measurement does not include the caudal fin tendril. All possession limits discussed below are per person per trip.

Typically, the Council and Commission consider modifications to all of the Federal commercial management measures in conjunction with the specifications. In 2015, the Council and Commission postponed decision making on changes to the scup commercial measures until a more thorough analysis could be completed. After considering the full suite of commercial management measures in Federal waters, the Council recommends, and this rule proposes, changing the commercial scup incidental possession limit from 500 lb (227 kg) to 1,000 lb (454 kg) from November 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. This incidental possession limit applies to vessels using mesh smaller than 5.0 inches (12.7 cm).

Proposed 2016 Recreational Management Measures

NMFS is proposing the following measures that would apply in the Federal waters of the EEZ. These measures apply to all federally permitted party/charter vessels with applicable summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass permits, regardless of where they fish, unless the state in which they land implements measures that are more restrictive. These measures are intended to achieve, but not exceed, the previously-established recreational harvest limits for these fisheries (December 28, 2015; 80 FR 80689). For summer flounder, we are proposing the use of state-by-state or regional conservation equivalency measures, which are the status quo measures, and no changes to the scup or black sea bass recreational management measures. Although unlikely, given the Board's February 2016 decisions on black sea bass measures, NMFS may implement more restrictive black sea bass measures for Federal waters if states fail to implement measures that, when paired with the Council's recommended measures, provide the necessary conservation to ensure the 2016 recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. These measures, as recommended by the Council, would be a 14-inch (35.6-cm) minimum fish size, a 3-fish per person possession limit, and an open season of July 15-September 15, 2016.

Summer Flounder Recreational Management Measures

NMFS proposes to implement the Council and Commission's recommendation to use conservation equivalency to manage the 2016 summer flounder recreational fishery. The 2016 recreational harvest limit for summer flounder is 5.42 million lb (2,457 mt) and projected landings for 2015 are approximately 4.62 million lb (2,096 mt). These 2015 projected landings are based on preliminary Marine Recreational Information Program estimates through Wave 6 (November and December 2015). As a result, maintaining the 2015 measures is expected to effectively constrain the 2016 recreational landings and prevent the recreational harvest limit from being exceeded.

Conservation equivalency, as established by Framework Adjustment 2 (July 29, 2001; 66 FR 36208), allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits, minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state harvest limit partitioned by the Commission from the coastwide recreational harvest limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures. Framework Adjustment 6 (July 26, 2006; 71 FR 42315) allowed states to form regions for conservation equivalency in order to minimize differences in regulations for anglers fishing in adjacent waters.

The Council and Board annually recommend that either state- or region-specific recreational measures be developed (conservation equivalency) or that coastwide management measures be implemented to ensure that the recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. Even when the Council and Board recommend conservation equivalency, the Council must specify a set of coastwide measures that would apply if conservation equivalency is not approved for use in Federal waters.

When conservation equivalency is recommended, and following confirmation that the proposed state or regional measures developed through the Commission's technical and policy review processes achieve conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at § 648.4(b), which requires Federal permit holders to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. In such a situation, federally permitted summer flounder charter/party permit holders and individuals fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ would then be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide measures.

In addition, the Council and the Board must recommend precautionary default measures when recommending conservation equivalency. The Commission would require adoption of the precautionary default measures by any state that either does not submit a summer flounder management proposal to the Commission's Summer Flounder Technical Committee, or that submits measures that would exceed the Commission-specified harvest limit for that state.

Much of the conservation equivalency measures development process happens at both the Commission and the individual state level. The selection of appropriate data and analytical techniques for technical review of potential state conservation equivalent measures and the process by which the Commission evaluates and recommends proposed conservation equivalent measures is wholly a function of the Commission and its individual member states. Individuals seeking information regarding the process to develop specific state measures or the Commission process for technical evaluation of proposed measures should contact the marine fisheries agency in the state of interest, the Commission, or both.

The Commission has implemented an addendum to its Summer Flounder FMP (Addendum XXVII) to continue regional conservation equivalency for fishing year 2016. The Commission has adopted the following regions: (1) Massachusetts; (2) Rhode Island; (3) Connecticut and New York; (4) New Jersey; (4) Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; and (5) North Carolina. In order to provide the maximum amount of flexibility and to continue to adequately address the state-by-state differences in fish availability, each state in a region is required by the Council and Commission to establish fishing seasons of the same length, with identical minimum fish sizes and possession limits. The Commission will need to certify that these measures, in combination, are the conservation equivalent of coastwide measures that would be expected to result in the recreational harvest limit being achieved, but not exceeded. More information on this addendum is available from the Commission (www.asmfc.org).

Once the states and regions select their final 2016 summer flounder management measures through their respective development, analytical, and review processes and submit them to the Commission, the Commission will conduct further review and evaluation of the submitted proposals, ultimately notifying NMFS as to which proposals have been approved or disapproved. NMFS has no overarching authority in the development of state or Commission management measures, but is an equal participant along with all the member states in the review process. NMFS retains the final authority either to approve or to disapprove the use of conservation equivalency in place of the coastwide measures in Federal waters, and will publish its determination as a final rule in the Federal Register to establish the 2016 recreational measures for these fisheries.

States that do not submit conservation equivalency proposals, or whose proposals are disapproved by the Commission, will be required by the Commission to adopt the precautionary default measures. In February 2016, the Commission's Summer Flounder Board convened and approved a suite of measures and/or analytical techniques for measures development that should achieve conservation equivalency. Thus, it is unlikely that the precautionary default measures will be necessary for 2016. However, if states are initially assigned precautionary default measures, they may subsequently receive Commission approval of revised state measures. In that case, NMFS would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing a waiver of the permit condition at § 648.4(b).

The 2016 precautionary default measures recommended by the Council and Board are for a 20.0-inch (50.8-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of two fish, and an open season of May 1 through September 30, 2016.

In this action, NMFS proposes to implement conservation equivalency with a precautionary default backstop, as previously outlined, for states that either fail to submit conservation equivalent measures or whose measures are not approved by the Commission. NMFS proposes the alternative of coastwide measures (18-inch (45.7-cm) minimum size, 4-fish possession limit, May 1-September 30 open fishing season), if conservation equivalency is not approved in the final rule.

Scup Recreational Management Measures

The 2016 scup recreational harvest limit is 6.09 million lb (2,763 mt) and 2015 recreational landings are currently estimated at 4.88 million lb (2,214 mt). The Council recommended maintaining the existing management measures, as no changes are needed to ensure the 2016 recreational harvest limit is not exceeded, and further liberalization of the management measures is not requested or advisable. As a result, no changes to the current scup management measures (9-inch or 22.9 cm minimum fish size, 50-fish per person possession limit, and year-round season) are proposed.

Black Sea Bass Recreational Management Measures

The 2016 black sea bass recreational harvest limit is 2.82 million lb (1,280 mt), while the 2015 projected landings are 3.62 million lb (1,642 mt). These 2015 projected landings are based on preliminary Marine Recreational Information Program estimates through Wave 6 (November and December 2015). 2016 management measures must reduce landings by 22-percent relative to 2015 in order to constrain catch within the 2016 recreational harvest limit. Recreational black sea bass catch occurs primarily in state waters in the states of New Jersey through Massachusetts (i.e., the northern region). As such, the Council recommends maintaining the existing black sea bass regulations for Federal waters, and implementing the necessary reduction through changes in state waters measures.

Since 2011, the management measures in the northern region have been more restrictive than in Federal waters. The northern states, through the Commission process, are expected to implement measures to achieve a 22-percent reduction in landings from each state. The southern region states (Delaware through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina) are expected to implement state waters measures that are identical to the proposed Federal measures. The northern states' reduction, in combination with the Council's recommendation of maintaining the status quo measures in Federal waters and state waters from Delaware to North Carolina, are intended to achieve, but not exceed, the recreational harvest limit and recreational annual catch limit in 2016.

Accountability measures for the black sea bass recreational fishery utilize a rolling three-year average comparison of catch to the average of the same three years' ACLs. Because the average catch from 2012 through 2014 exceeds the average annual catch limit for those years by 37.9 percent, an accountability measure is applicable to the 2016 fishery. The 2016 accountability measures are the same as those implemented in 2015 (12.5-inch (31.8-cm) minimum size, 15-fish possession limit, and 201-day fishing season). Continuing these regulations preserves the accountability measures that were applied last year; as such, no further accountability measures are necessary for 2015.

We are proposing no changes to the current Federal waters measures (12.5-inch (31.8-cm) minimum size, 15-fish possession limit, and open seasons of May 15-September 21 and October 22-December 31), consistent with the Council's recommendation. These measures maintain the accountability measures implemented in 2015. This proposal is contingent upon the northern region, established under the Commission's Addendum XXVII, implementing the required reduction in their state regulations. If the northern region's measures do not meet the required reduction, NMFS is proposing the Council's default recommendation of a 14-inch (35.6-cm) minimum size, a 3-fish possession limit, and an open season of July 15-September 15 (i.e., a 63-day fishing season). The Council and NMFS expect, based on February 2016 action by the Commission's black sea bass Board, that these default measures will not be necessary.

Commercial Scup Incidental Possession Limit Change

The Council initiated a review of the scup commercial management measures in 2015 and is recommending an increase in the incidental possession limit in the winter season. Currently, the regulations require vessels retaining more than 500 lb (227 kg) of scup from November 1 through April 30, or more than 200 lb (91 kg) from May 1 through October 31, to use mesh larger than 5 inches (12.7 cm). The Council is recommending, and this rule proposes, to raise the incidental limit to 1,000 lb (454 kg) for the November-April season for vessels using mesh smaller than 5 inches (12.7 cm) to minimize regulatory discards without compromising the scup stock. Vessels using mesh larger than 5 inches (12.7 cm) may continue to land up to the targeted commercial fishery possession limit according to the applicable Federal and state rules.

Additional Regulatory Changes

This rule would also correct two errors in the commercial summer flounder regulations.

The summer flounder minimum mesh size regulations at § 648.108(a)(1) require that any vessel landing or possessing more than 100 lb (45 kg) of summer flounder from May 1 through October 31, or 200 lb (91 kg) of summer flounder from November 1 through April 30, use at least 5.5-inch (14-cm) diamond or 6.0-inch (15-cm) square mesh “throughout the body, extension(s), and codend portion of the net.” However, the turtle excluding device (TED) regulations require summer flounder trawls fishing in the sea turtle protection area to have a TED extension with webbing no larger than 3.5 inches (9-cm). This rule would eliminate the conflict between these two regulations by specifying that the minimum mesh size restrictions do not apply to extensions needed to comply with the TED regulations.

The flynet program exemption from the summer flounder minimum mesh requirements can be found at § 648.108(b)(2)(i)-(iii). The Regional Administrator's authority to terminate the exemption after review is incorrectly listed at § 648.108(b)(3) and should be referenced at § 648.108(b)(2)(iv), which this rule proposes to do.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with a SIR. Because no regulatory changes are proposed that would affect the recreational black sea bass or scup fisheries, they are not considered in the evaluation. There were 547 federally permitted summer flounder charter/party vessels, all of which are considered “small” by the Small Business Administration's size standards. The commercial scup incidental possession limit change could potentially affect 649 commercial entities that had revenues generated from scup during the 2012-2014 period. Of these, 642 entities are categorized as small and 7 are categorized as large. Scup represented approximately 0.06 percent of the average receipts of the small entities considered and 0.34 percent of the average receipts of the large entities considered over the 2012-2014 time period.

The proposed measure would continue the use of conservation equivalency for summer flounder, maintain the existing scup and black sea bass recreational management measures, and increase the commercial incidental scup possession limit from 500 lb (227 kg) to 1,000 lb (454 kg). The proposed action would result in status quo measures for all three recreational fisheries in Federal waters. Further, the scup possession limit change is intended to allow vessels catching scup in the prosecution of other fisheries to keep 500 lb (227 kg) more than they are currently allowed, rather than discarding them. This is not likely to change fishing behavior, but could result in a slightly positive economic impact for those vessels. Collectively, analysis conducted by the Council indicates that these measures would have a minimal, potentially slight positive impact on regulated entities.

Because this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 18, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. Section 648.107, introductory text to paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
§ 648.107 Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.

(a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Maine through North Carolina for 2016 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

3. In § 648.108, paragraph (b)(3) is redesignated as paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
§ 648.108 Summer flounder gear restrictions.

(a) General. (1) Otter trawlers whose owners are issued a summer flounder permit and that land or possess 100 lb (45.4 kg) or more of summer flounder from May 1 through October 31, or 200 lb (90.7 kg) or more of summer flounder from November 1 through April 30, per trip, must fish with nets that have a minimum mesh size of 5.5-inch (14.0-cm) diamond or 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) square mesh applied throughout the body, extension(s), and codend portion of the net, except as required in a TED extension, in accordance with § 223.206(d)(2)(iii) of this title.

4. In § 648.125, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
§ 648.125 Scup gear restrictions.

(a) Trawl vessel gear restrictions—(1) Minimum mesh size. No owner or operator of an otter trawl vessel that is issued a scup moratorium permit may possess 1,000 lb (454 kg) or more of scup from November 1 through April 30, or 200 lb (91 kg) or more of scup from May 1 through October 31, unless fishing with nets that have a minimum mesh size of 5.0-inch (12.7-cm) diamond mesh, applied throughout the codend for at least 75 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, and all other nets are stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.

[FR Doc. 2016-12076 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
81 99 Monday, May 23, 2016 Notices ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Notice of Public Meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States AGENCY:

Administrative Conference of the United States.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States will hold a meeting to consider two proposed recommendations and to conduct other business. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES:

The meeting will take place on Friday, June 10, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 (Main Conference Room).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel (Designated Federal Officer), Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2088; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to federal agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The membership of the Conference, when meeting in plenary session, constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595).

Agenda: The Assembly will consider two proposed recommendations as described below:

Consumer Complaint Databases. This proposed recommendation encourages agencies that make consumer complaints publicly available through online databases or downloadable data sets to adopt and publish written policies governing the dissemination of such information to the public. These policies should inform the public of the source and limitations of the information and permit entities publicly identified to respond or request corrections or retractions.

Aggregation of Similar Claims in Agency Adjudication. This proposed recommendation provides guidance to agencies on the use of aggregation techniques to resolve similar claims in adjudications. It sets forth procedures for determining whether aggregation is appropriate. It also considers what kinds of aggregation techniques should be used in certain cases and offers guidance on how to structure the aggregation proceedings to promote both efficiency and fairness.

Additional information about the proposed recommendations and the order of the agenda, as well as other materials related to the meeting, can be found at the 65th Plenary Session page on the Conference's Web site: https://www.acus.gov/meetings-and-events/plenary-meeting/65th-plenary-session.

Public Participation: The Conference welcomes the attendance of the public at the meeting, subject to space limitations, and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities or special needs. Members of the public who wish to attend in person are asked to RSVP online at the 65th Plenary Session Web page listed above, no later than two days before the meeting, in order to facilitate entry. Members of the public who attend the meeting may be permitted to speak only with the consent of the Chairman and the unanimous approval of the members of the Assembly. If you need special accommodations due to disability, please inform the Designated Federal Officer noted above at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. The public may also view the meeting through a live webcast, which will be available at: https://livestream.com/ACUS/65thPlenary.

Written Comments: Persons who wish to comment on any of the proposed recommendations may do so by submitting a written statement either online by clicking “Submit a Comment” on the 65th Plenary Session Web page listed above or by mail addressed to: June 2016 Plenary Session Comments, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Written submissions must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Monday, June 6, to assure consideration by the Assembly.

Dated: May 18, 2016. Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-12075 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6110-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Craig, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf.

DATES:

The meeting will be held June 20, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Craig Ranger District, 504 9th Street, Craig, Alaska. If you wish to attend via teleconference, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Craig Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Manuel, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-228-6200 or via email at [email protected]

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under Title II of the Act.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 15, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Matthew Anderson, Designated Federal Officer, P.O. Box 500, Craig, Alaska 99921; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 907-826-2972.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

Dated: May 4, 2016. Matt D. Anderson, District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 2016-11796 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Craig, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf.

DATES:

The meeting will be held June 27, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Craig Ranger District, 504 9th Street, Craig, Alaska. If you wish to attend via teleconference, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Craig Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Manuel, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-228-6200 or via email at [email protected]

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under Title II of the Act.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 22, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Matthew Anderson, Designated Federal Officer, P.O. Box 500, Craig, Alaska 99921; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 907-826-2972.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

Dated: May 4, 2016. Matt D. Anderson, District Ranger, DFO.
[FR Doc. 2016-11794 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Eastern Arizona Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Eastern Arizona Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Springerville, Arizona. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under title II of the Act.

DATES:

The meeting will be held July 12, 2016 beginning at 9 a.m. until 4 p.m., and continuing if necessary, on July 13, 2016 at 9 a.m. until approximately 4 p.m.

All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisor's Office conference room, located at 30 South Chiricahua Drive, Springerville, Arizona 85938.

Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests upervisor's Office, 30 South Chiricahua Drive, Springerville, Arizona 85938. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marta Call, RAC Program Coordinator, Eastern Arizona Resource Advisory Committee by phone at 928-333-6336 or via email at [email protected]

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/asnf. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Marta Call, RAC Program Coordinator, Apache-Sitgreaves NF, P.O. Box 640, Springerville, Arizona 85938; or by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 928-333-5966.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

Dated: May 12, 2016. Wendy Jo Haskins, Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2016-12038 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Deer Lodge, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.ft.usda.gov/mainlbdnflworkingtogether/advisorycommittees.

DATES:

The meeting will be held June 28, 2016, from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the USDA Service Center, 1002 Hollenbeck Lane, Deer Lodge, Montana.

Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Breck Hudson, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-683-3935 or via email at [email protected] us.

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects for Title II funding.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 24, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Breck Hudson, RAC Coordinator, 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, Montana 59725; by email to [email protected] us, or via facsimile to 406-683-3855.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

Dated: May 13, 2016. Melany Glossa, Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2016-11792 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Craig, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf.

DATES:

The meeting will be held June 13, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Craig Ranger District, 504 9th Street, Craig, Alaska. If you wish to attend via teleconference, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Craig Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Manuel, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-228-6200 or via email at [email protected]

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under Title II of the Act.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 8, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Matthew Anderson, Designated Federal Officer, P.O. Box 500, Craig, Alaska 99921; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 907-826-2972.

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

Dated: May 4, 2016. Matt D. Anderson, District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 2016-11795 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) for Fiscal Year 2016 AGENCY:

Rural Housing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The Rural Housing Service (RHS), an agency within the USDA Rural Development mission area herein referred to as the Agency announces the availability of funding under the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) program. Applicants must provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the Federal grant. These grants will be made to qualified intermediary organizations that will provide financial and technical assistance to recipients to develop their capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will support the community.

This Notice lists the information needed to submit an application for these funds. This Notice contains revised evaluation criteria that are streamlined, in order to enhance program efficiency and delivery.

DATES:

The deadline for receipt of an application is 4 p.m. local time, July 22, 2016. The application date and time are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), electronic mail and postage due applications will not be accepted.

ADDRESSES:

Entities wishing to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements delineated in this Notice from the RCDI Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-community-development-initiative-grants.

Application information for electronic submissions may be found at http://www.grants.gov.

Applicants may also request paper application packages from the Rural Development office in their state. A list of Rural Development State offices contacts can be found via http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Rural Development office for the state in which the applicant is located. A list of Rural Development State Office contacts is provided at the following link: http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The paperwork burden has been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0575-0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

Federal Agency: Rural Housing Service.

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Community Development Initiative.

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.446.

Dates: The deadline for receipt of an application is 4 p.m. local time, July 22, 2016. The application date and time are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), electronic mail and postage due applications will not be accepted.

A. Program Description

Congress first authorized the RCDI in 1999 (Pub. L. 106-78, which was amended most recently by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113)). The RCDI was authorized to develop the capacity and ability of qualified private, nonprofit community-based housing and community development organizations, low-income rural communities, and federally recognized Native American Tribes to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas. Strengthening the recipient's capacity in these areas will benefit the communities they serve. The RCDI structure requires the intermediary (grantee) to provide a program of financial and technical assistance to recipients. The recipients will, in turn, provide programs to their communities (beneficiaries).

Of particular note this year, the Agency is encouraging applications for projects based in or servicing high poverty areas. This emphasis will support Rural Development's (RD) mission of improving the quality of life for rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.

B. Federal Award Information

Congress, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), appropriated $4,000,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 for the RCDI program. The amount of funding received in the FY 2016 Appropriations Act can also be found at the following link: http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RD_FY2016AppropriationsTable.pdf.

Qualified private, nonprofit and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations proposing to carry out financial and technical assistance programs will be eligible to receive the grant funding.

The intermediary will be required to provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the RCDI grant.

A grant will be the type of assistance instrument awarded to successful applications.

The respective minimum and maximum grant amount per intermediary is $50,000 and $250,000.

Grant funds must be utilized within 3 years from date of the award.

A grantee that has an outstanding RCDI grant over 3 years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, is not eligible to apply for this round of funding.

The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to one or more of the following: A private, nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community or a federally recognized tribe.

Applicants must certify compliance with sections 743 and 744 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113. These provisions state:

SEC. 743.

(a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be available for a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with an entity that requires employees or contractors of such entity seeking to report fraud, waste, or abuse to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or contractors from lawfully reporting such waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information.

(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not contravene requirements applicable to Standard Form 312, Form 4414, or any other form issued by a Federal department or agency governing the nondisclosure of classified information.

SEC. 744.

(a) No funds appropriated in this or any other Act may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in Standard Forms 312 and 4414 of the Government or any other nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy, form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions: “These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.”: Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding provision of this section, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than an employee or officer of the United States Government, may contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not disclose any classified information received in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the United States Government. Such nondisclosure forms shall also make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress, or to an authorized official of an executive agency or the Department of Justice, that are essential to reporting a substantial violation of law.

(b) A nondisclosure agreement may continue to be implemented and enforced notwithstanding subsection (a) if it complies with the requirements for such agreement that were in effect when the agreement was entered into.

(c) No funds appropriated in this or any other Act may be used to implement or enforce any agreement entered into during fiscal year 2014 which does not contain substantially similar language to that required in subsection (a).

C. Eligibility Information

Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements by the application deadline. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further, and will not receive a Federal award.

1. Eligible Applicants

(a) Qualified private, nonprofit, (including faith-based and community organizations and philanthropic foundations), in accordance with 7 CFR part 16, and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations are eligible applicants. Definitions that describe eligible organizations and other key terms are listed below.

(b) The recipient must be a nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, low-income rural community, or federally recognized tribe based on the RCDI definitions of these groups.

(c) Private nonprofit, faith or community-based organizations must provide a certificate of incorporation and good standing from the Secretary of the State of incorporation, or other similar and valid documentation of current nonprofit status. For low-income rural community recipients, the Agency requires evidence that the entity is a public body and census data verifying that the median household income of the community where the office receiving the financial and technical assistance is located is at, or below, 80 percent of the State or national median household income, whichever is higher. For federally recognized tribes, the Agency needs the page listing their name from the current Federal Register list of tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding services (see the definition of federally recognized tribes in this Notice for details on this list).

(d) Any corporation (1) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (2) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

There is a matching requirement of at least equal to the amount of the grant. If this matching funds requirement is not met, the application will be deemed ineligible. See section D, Application and Submission Information, for required pre-award and post award matching funds documentation submission.

The intermediary must provide matching funds at least equal to the amount of the grant. Verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application. Matching funds must be committed for a period equal to the grant performance period. The intermediary will be required to provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the RCDI grant. In-kind contributions such as salaries, donated time and effort, real and nonexpendable personal property and goods and services cannot be used as matching funds.

Matching funds are cash or confirmed funding commitments and must be at least equal to the grant amount and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period. These funds can only be used for eligible RCDI activities. Matching funds must be used to support the overall purpose of the RCDI program.

In-kind contributions such as salaries, donated time and effort, real and nonexpendable personal property and goods and services cannot be used as matching funds.

Grant funds and matching funds must be used in equal proportions. This does not mean funds have to be used equally by line item.

The request for advance or reimbursement and supporting documentation must show that RCDI fund usage does not exceed the cumulative amount of matching funds used.

Grant funds will be disbursed pursuant to relevant provisions of 2 CFR parts 200 and 400. Verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application. See Section D, other program requirements, for matching funds documentation and pre-award requirements.

The intermediary is responsible for demonstrating that matching funds are available, and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period to the RCDI proposal. Matching funds may be provided by the intermediary or a third party. Other Federal funds may be used as matching funds if authorized by statute and the purpose of the funds is an eligible RCDI purpose.

RCDI funds will be disbursed on an advance or reimbursement basis. Matching funds cannot be expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

3. Other Program Requirements

(a) The recipient and beneficiary, but not the intermediary, must be located in an eligible rural area. The physical location of the recipient's office that will be receiving the financial and technical assistance must be in an eligible rural area. If the recipient is a low-income community, the median household income of the area where the office is located must be at or below 80 percent of the State or national median household income, whichever is higher. The applicable Rural Development State Office can assist in determining the eligibility of an area.

A listing of Rural Development State Office contacts can be found at the following link: http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf. A map showing eligible rural areas can be found at the following link: http://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/eligibility/welcomeAction.do?pageAction=RBSmenu&[email protected]

(b) RCDI grantees that have an outstanding grant over 3 years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, will not be eligible to apply for this round of funding. Grant and matching funds must be utilized in a timely manner to ensure that the goals and objectives of the program are met.

(c) Individuals cannot be recipients.

(d) The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to the recipient.

(e) The intermediary organization must have been legally organized for a minimum of 3 years and have at least 3 years prior experience working with private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations, low-income rural communities, or tribal organizations in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

(f) Proposals must be structured to utilize the grant funds within 3 years from the date of the award.

(g) Each applicant, whether singularly or jointly, may only submit one application for RCDI funds under this Notice. This restriction does not preclude the applicant from providing matching funds for other applications.

(h) Recipients can benefit from more than one RCDI application; however, after grant selections are made, the recipient can only benefit from multiple RCDI grants if the type of financial and technical assistance the recipient will receive is not duplicative. The services described in multiple RCDI grant applications must have separate and identifiable accounts for compliance purposes.

(i) The intermediary and the recipient cannot be the same entity. The recipient can be a related entity to the intermediary, if it meets the definition of a recipient, provided the relationship does not create a Conflict of Interest that cannot be resolved to Rural Development's satisfaction.

(j) If the recipient is a low-income rural community, identify the unit of government to which the financial and technical assistance will be provided, e.g., town council or village board. The financial and technical assistance must be provided to the organized unit of government representing that community, not the community at large.

4. Eligible Grant Purposes

Fund uses must be consistent with the RCDI purpose. A nonexclusive list of eligible grant uses includes the following:

(a) Provide technical assistance to develop recipients' capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development, e.g., the intermediary hires a staff person to provide technical assistance to the recipient or the recipient hires a staff person, under the supervision of the intermediary, to carry out the technical assistance provided by the intermediary.

(b) Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct community development programs, e.g., homeownership education or training for business entrepreneurs.

(c) Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct development initiatives, e.g., programs that support micro-enterprise and sustainable development.

(d) Develop the capacity of recipients to increase their leveraging ability and access to alternative funding sources by providing training and staffing.

(e) Develop the capacity of recipients to provide the technical assistance component for essential community facilities projects.

(f) Assist recipients in completing pre-development requirements for housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects by providing resources for professional services, e.g., architectural, engineering, or legal.

(g) Improve recipient's organizational capacity by providing training and resource material on developing strategic plans, board operations, management, financial systems, and information technology.

(h) Purchase of computers, software, and printers, limited to $10,000 per award, at the recipient level when directly related to the technical assistance program being undertaken by the intermediary.

(i) Provide funds to recipients for training-related travel costs and training expenses related to RCDI.

5. Ineligible Fund Uses

The following is a list of ineligible grant uses:

(a) Pass-through grants, and any funds provided to the recipient in a lump sum that are not reimbursements.

(b) Funding a revolving loan fund (RLF).

(c) Construction (in any form).

(d) Salaries for positions involved in construction, renovations, rehabilitation, and any oversight of these types of activities.

(e) Intermediary preparation of strategic plans for recipients.

(f) Funding prostitution, gambling, or any illegal activities.

(g) Grants to individuals.

(h) Funding a grant where there may be a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest, involving any action by the Agency.

(i) Paying obligations incurred before the beginning date without prior Agency approval or after the ending date of the grant agreement.

(j) Purchasing real estate.

(k) Improvement or renovation of the grantee's, or recipient's office space or for the repair or maintenance of privately owned vehicles.

(l) Any purpose prohibited in 2 CFR part 200 or 400.

(m) Using funds for recipient's general operating costs.

(n) Using grant or matching funds for Individual Development Accounts.

(o) Purchasing vehicles.

6. Program Examples and Restrictions

The following are examples of eligible and ineligible purposes under the RCDI program. (These examples are illustrative and are not meant to limit the activities proposed in the application. Activities that meet the objectives of the RCDI program and meet the criteria outlined in this Notice will be considered eligible.)

(a) The intermediary must work directly with the recipient, not the ultimate beneficiaries. As an example:

The intermediary provides training to the recipient on how to conduct homeownership education classes. The recipient then provides ongoing homeownership education to the residents of the community—the ultimate beneficiaries. This “train the trainer” concept fully meets the intent of this initiative. The intermediary is providing technical assistance that will build the recipient's capacity by enabling them to conduct homeownership education classes for the public.

This is an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary directly provided homeownership education classes to individuals in the recipient's service area, this would not be an eligible purpose because the recipient would be bypassed.

(b) If the intermediary is working with a low-income community as the recipient, the intermediary must provide the technical assistance to the entity that represents the low-income community and is identified in the application. Examples of entities representing a low-income community are a village board or a town council.

If the intermediary provides technical assistance to the Board of the low-income community on how to establish a cooperative, this would be an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary works directly with individuals from the community to establish the cooperative, this is not an eligible purpose.

The recipient's capacity is built by learning skills that will enable them to support sustainable economic development in their communities on an ongoing basis.

(c) The intermediary may provide technical assistance to the recipient on how to create and operate a revolving loan fund. The intermediary may not monitor or operate the revolving loan fund. RCDI funds, including matching funds, cannot be used to fund revolving loan funds.

(d) The intermediary may work with recipients in building their capacity to provide planning and leadership development training. The recipients of this training would be expected to assume leadership roles in the development and execution of regional strategic plans. The intermediary would work with multiple recipients in helping communities recognize their connections to the greater regional and national economies.

(e) The intermediary could provide training and technical assistance to the recipients on developing emergency shelter and feeding, short-term housing, search and rescue, and environmental accident, prevention, and cleanup program plans. For longer term disaster and economic crisis responses, the intermediary could work with the recipients to develop job placement and training programs, and develop coordinated transit systems for displaced workers.

D. Application and Submission Information 1. Address To Request Application Package

Entities wishing to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements delineated in this Notice from the RCDI Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-community-development-initiative-grants.

Application information for electronic submissions may be found at http://www.grants.gov.

Applicants may also request paper application packages from the Rural Development office in their state. A list of Rural Development State office contacts can be found via http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf. You may also obtain a copy by calling 202-205-9685.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

If the applicant is ineligible or the application is incomplete, the Agency will inform the applicant in writing of the decision, reasons therefore, and its appeal rights and no further evaluation of the application will occur.

A complete application for RCDI funds must include the following:

(a) A summary page, double-spaced between items, listing the following: (This information should not be presented in narrative form.)

(1) Applicant's name,

(2) Applicant's address,

(3) Applicant's telephone number,

(4) Name of applicant's contact person, email address and telephone number,

(5) Applicant's fax number,

(6) County where applicant is located,

(7) Congressional district number where applicant is located,

(8) Amount of grant request, and

(9) Number of recipients.

(b) A detailed Table of Contents containing page numbers for each component of the application.

(c) A project overview, no longer than one page, including the following items, which will also be addressed separately and in detail under “Building Capacity and Expertise” of the “Evaluation Criteria.”

(1) The type of technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and how it will be implemented.

(2) How the capacity and ability of the recipients will be improved.

(3) The overall goals to be accomplished.

(4) The benchmarks to be used to measure the success of the program. Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable.

(d) Organizational documents, such as a certificate of incorporation and a current good standing certification from the Secretary of State where the applicant is incorporated and other similar and valid documentation of current non-profit status, from the intermediary that confirms it has been legally organized for a minimum of 3 years as the applicant entity.

(e) Verification of source and amount of matching funds, e.g., a copy of a bank statement if matching funds are in cash or a copy of the confirmed funding commitment from the funding source.

The verification must show that matching funds are available for the duration of the grant performance period. The verification of matching funds must be submitted with the application or the application will be considered incomplete.

The applicant will be contacted by the Agency prior to grant award to verify that the matching funds provided with the application continue to be available. The applicant will have 15 days from the date contacted to submit verification that matching funds continue to be available.

If the applicant is unable to provide the verification within that timeframe, the application will be considered ineligible. The applicant must maintain bank statements on file or other documentation for a period of at least 3 years after grant closing except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3-year period if audit findings have not been resolved.

(f) The following information for each recipient:

(1) Recipient's entity name,

(2) Complete address (mailing and physical location, if different),

(3) County where located,

(4) Number of Congressional district where recipient is located,

(5) Contact person's name, email address and telephone number and,

(6) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” If the Form RD 400-4 is not submitted for the applicant and each recipient, the recipient will be considered ineligible. No information pertaining to that recipient will be included in the income or population scoring criteria and the requested funding may be adjusted due to the deletion of the recipient.

(g) Submit evidence that each recipient entity is eligible. Documentation must be submitted to verify recipient eligibility. Acceptable documentation varies depending on the type of recipient:

(1) Nonprofits—provide a current valid letter confirming non-profit status from the Secretary of the State of incorporation, a current good standing certification from the Secretary of the State of incorporation, or other valid documentation of current nonprofit status of each recipient.

A nonprofit recipient must provide evidence that it is a valid nonprofit when the intermediary applies for the RCDI grant. Organizations with pending requests for nonprofit designations are not eligible.

(2) Low-income rural community—provide evidence the entity is a public body (copy of Charter, relevant Acts of Assembly, relevant court orders (if created judicially) or other valid documentation), a copy of the 2010 census data to verify the population, and 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (2006-2010 data set) data as evidence that the median household income is at, or below, 80 percent of either the State or national median household income. We will only accept data and printouts from http://www.census.gov.

(3) Federally recognized tribes—provide the page listing their name from the Federal Register list of tribal entities published most recently by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 2015 list is available at 80 FR 1942-48 and http://www.indianaffairs.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-029079.pdf.

(h) Each of the “Evaluation Criteria” must be addressed specifically and individually by category. Present these criteria in narrative form. Documentation must be limited to five pages per criterion. The “Population and Income” criteria for recipient locations can be provided in the form of a list; however, the source of the data must be included on the page(s).

(i) A timeline identifying specific activities and proposed dates for completion.

(j) A detailed project budget that includes the RCDI grant amount and matching funds. This should be a line-item budget, by category. Categories such as salaries, administrative, other, and indirect costs that pertain to the proposed project must be clearly defined. Supporting documentation listing the components of these categories must be included. The budget should be dated: Year 1, year 2, year 3, as applicable.

(k) The indirect cost category in the project budget should be used only when a grant applicant has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate. A copy of the current rate agreement must be provided with the application. Non-federal entities that have never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200—States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph (d)(1)(B), may use the de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC).

(l) Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” (Do not complete Form SF-424A, “Budget Information.” A separate line-item budget should be presented as described in Letter (J) of this section.)

(m) Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.”

(n) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”

(o) Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

(p) Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.”

(q) Certification of Non-Lobbying Activities.

(r) Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

(s) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement,” for the applicant and each recipient.

(t) Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees. (A statement acknowledging whether or not a relationship exists is required).

(u) Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities.

3. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and System for Awards Management (SAM)

Grant applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting a pre-application pursuant to 2 CFR 25.200(b). In addition, an entity applicant must maintain registration in SAM at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by the Agency. Similarly, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation in accordance to 2 CFR part 170. So long as an entity applicant does not have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b), the applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should the applicant receive funding. See 2 CFR 170.200(b).

An applicant, unless excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c), or (d), is required to:

(a) Be registered in SAM before submitting its application;

(b) Provide a valid DUNS number in its application; and

(c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

The Federal awarding agency may not make a federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Federal awarding agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Federal awarding agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), all grant applications must provide a DUNS number when applying for Federal grants, on or after October 1, 2003. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free number at 1-866-705-5711 or via Internet at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. Additional information concerning this requirement can be obtained on the Grants.gov Web site at http://www.grants.gov. Similarly, applicants may register for SAM at https://www.sam.gov or by calling 1-866-606-8220.

The DUNS number should be identified in the “Organizational DUNS” field on Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” Since there are no specific fields for a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date, they may be identified anywhere on the Form SF 424. If the applicant does not provide the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in the application, it will not be considered for funding. The required forms and certifications can be downloaded from the RCDI Web site at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-community-development-initiative-grants.

4. Submission Dates and Times

The deadline for receipt of an application is 4 p.m. local time, July 22, 2016. The application date and time are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by the United States Postal Service or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), electronic mail and postage due applications will not be accepted.

To submit a paper application, the original application package must be submitted to the Rural Development State Office where the applicant's headquarters is located.

A listing of Rural Development State Offices contacts can be found via http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf. Applications will not be accepted via FAX or electronic mail.

Applicants may file an electronic application at http://www.grants.gov. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing, and software. Follow the instructions at Grants.gov for registering and submitting an electronic application. If a system problem or technical difficulty occurs with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.

Technical difficulties submitting an application through Grants.gov will not be a reason to extend the application deadline. If an application is unable to be submitted through Grants.gov, a paper application must be received in the appropriate Rural Development State Office by the deadline noted previously.

First time Grants.gov users should carefully read and follow the registration steps listed on the Web site. These steps need to be initiated early in the application process to avoid delays in submitting your application online.

In order to register with System for Award Management (SAM), your organization will need a DUNS number. Be sure to complete the Marketing Partner ID (MPID) and Electronic Business Primary Point of Contact fields during the SAM registration process.

These are mandatory fields that are required when submitting grant applications through Grants.gov. Additional application instructions for submitting an electronic application can be found by selecting this funding opportunity on Grants.gov.

5. Funding Restrictions

Meeting expenses. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1345, “Expenses of Meetings,” appropriations may not be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for a meeting. RCDI grant funds cannot be used for these meeting-related expenses. Matching funds may, however, be used to pay for these expenses.

RCDI funds may be used to pay for a speaker as part of a program, equipment to facilitate the program, and the actual room that will house the meeting.

RCDI funds cannot be used for meetings; they can, however, be used for travel, transportation, or subsistence expenses for program-related training and technical assistance purposes. Any training not delineated in the application must be approved by the Agency to verify compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1345. Travel and per diem expenses (including meals and incidental expenses) will be allowed in accordance with 2 CFR parts 200 and 400.

E. Application Review Information 1. Evaluation Criteria

Applications will be evaluated using the following criteria and weights:

(a) Building Capacity and Expertise—Maximum 40 Points

The applicant must demonstrate how they will improve the recipients' capacity, through a program of financial and technical assistance, as it relates to the RCDI purposes.

Capacity-building financial and technical assistance should provide new functions to the recipients or expand existing functions that will enable the recipients to undertake projects in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will benefit the community. Capacity-building financial and technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: Training to conduct community development programs, e.g., homeownership education, or the establishment of minority business entrepreneurs, cooperatives, or micro-enterprises; organizational development, e.g., assistance to develop or improve board operations, management, and financial systems; instruction on how to develop and implement a strategic plan; instruction on how to access alternative funding sources to increase leveraging opportunities; staffing, e.g., hiring a person at intermediary or recipient level to provide technical assistance to recipients.

The program of financial and technical assistance that is to be provided, its delivery, and the measurability of the program's effectiveness will determine the merit of the application.

All applications will be competitively ranked with the applications providing the most improvement in capacity development and measurable activities being ranked the highest.

The narrative response must contain the following items. This list also contains the points for each item.

(1) Describe the nature of financial and technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and the activities that will be conducted to deliver the technical assistance; (10 Points)

(2) Explain how financial and technical assistance will develop or increase the recipient's capacity. Indicate whether a new function is being developed or if existing functions are being expanded or performed more effectively; (7 Points)

(3) Identify which RCDI purpose areas will be addressed with this assistance: Housing, community facilities, or community and economic development; (3 Points)

(4) Describe how the results of the technical assistance will be measured. What benchmarks will be used to measure effectiveness? Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable; (5 Points)

(5) Demonstrate that it has conducted programs of financial and technical assistance and achieved measurable results in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas; (10 Points)

(6) Provide in a chart or excel spreadsheet, the organization name, point of contact, address, phone number, email address, and the type and amount of the financial and technical assistance the applicant organization has provided to the following for the last 3 years: (5 Points)

(i) Nonprofit organizations in rural areas.

(ii) Low-income communities in rural areas (also include the type of entity, e.g., city government, town council, or village board).

(iii) Federally recognized tribes or any other culturally diverse organizations.

(b) Soundness of Approach—Maximum 15 Points

The applicant can receive up to 15 points for soundness of approach. The overall proposal will be considered under this criterion.

Applicants must list the page numbers in the application that address these factors.

The maximum 15 points for this criterion will be based on the following:

(1) The proposal fits the objectives for which applications were invited, is clearly stated, and the applicant has defined how this proposal will be implemented. (7 Points)

(2) The ability to provide the proposed financial and technical assistance based on prior accomplishments. (6 Points)

(3) Cost effectiveness will be evaluated based on the budget in the application. The proposed grant amount and matching funds should be utilized to maximize capacity building at the recipient level. (2 Points)

(c) Population and Income—Maximum 15 Points

Population is based on the average population from the 2010 census data for the communities in which the recipients are located. The physical address, not mailing address, for each recipient must be used for this criterion. Community is defined for scoring purposes as a city, town, village, county, parish, borough, or census-designated place where the recipient's office is physically located.

The applicant must submit the census data from the following Web site in the form of a printout of the applicable “Fact Sheet” to verify the population figures used for each recipient. The data can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.census.gov; click on “American FactFinder,” fill in field and click “Go”; the name and population data for each recipient location must be listed in this section.

The average population of the recipient locations will be used and will be scored as follows:

Population Scoring
  • (points)
  • 10,000 or less 5 10,001 to 20,000 4 20,001 to 30,000 3 30,001 to 40,000 2 40,001 to 50,000 1

    The average of the median household income for the communities where the recipients are physically located will determine the points awarded. The physical address, not mailing address, for each recipient must be used for this criterion. Applicants may compare the average recipient median household income to the State median household income or the national median household income, whichever yields the most points. The national median household income to be used is $51,914.

    The applicant must submit the income data in the form of a printout of the applicable information from the following Web site to verify the income for each recipient. The data being used is from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (2006-2010 data set). The data can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.census.gov; click on “American FactFinder” (under “Find Data” at bottom of page), “Advanced Search” (click on “Show Me All” tab, “Topics,” “Dataset,” locate 2010 ACS 5 year estimates, close table, check the “Median Income” table (S1903 on page 2), fill in the “state, county or place” field (at top of page), select “Go” and click “View”; the name and income data for each recipient location must be listed in this section (use the Household and Median Income column). Points will be awarded as follows:

    Average recipient median income Scoring
  • (points)
  • Less than or equal to 70 percent of state or national median household income 10 Greater than 70, but less than or equal to 80 percent of state or national median household income 5 In excess of 80 percent of state or national median household Income 0
    (d) State Director's Points Based on Project Merit—Maximum 10 Points

    (1) This criterion will be addressed by the Agency, not the applicant.

    (2) Up to 10 points may be awarded by the Rural Development State Director to any application(s) that benefits their state regardless of whether the applicant is headquartered in their state. The total points awarded under this criterion, to all applications, will not exceed 10.

    (3) When an intermediary submits an application that will benefit a state that is not the same as the state in which the intermediary is headquartered, it is the intermediary's responsibility to notify the State Director of the state which is receiving the benefit of their application. In such cases, State Directors awarding points to applications benefiting their state must notify the reviewing state in writing.

    (4) Assignment of any points under this criterion requires a written justification and must be tied to and awarded based on how closely the application aligns with the Rural Development State Office's strategic goals.

    (e) Support of Agency's Strategic Goals—Maximum 20 Points

    This criterion will be addressed by the Agency, not the applicant. The Agency Administrator may award up to 20 points to any application to the extent that the application supports Strategic Goal One in the USDA Strategic Plan 2014-2018. This plan can be found at the following link: www.usda.gov/documents/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-2018.pdf.

    Points may be awarded to applications that meet at least one of the following six criteria below (note: the maximum points can be given to any one of the following six criteria):

    (1) The project is based in a census tract with poverty greater than or equal to 20% (should provide the address and census tract in which the recipient is located);

    (2) The project is based in a community (village, town, city, or Census Designated Place) that is 75% CF grant eligible (rural community having a population of 5,000 or less and median household income (MHI) of 60% or less of the state's non-metropolitan median household income (NMHI) (should provide address, population (2010 census) and MHI (ACS 2006-2010 dataset) data in which the recipient is located);

    (3) The project's service area includes at least one census tract with poverty greater than or equal to 20% (should provide the address and census tract in which the recipient will conduct or deliver approved project activity);

    (4) The project's service area includes at least one community (village, town, city, or Census Designated Place) that is 75% CF grant eligible (rural community having a population of 5,000 or less and MHI of 60% or less of the state's NMHI) (should provide address, population (2010 census) and MHI (ACS 2006-2010 dataset) data in which the recipient will conduct or deliver approved project activity);

    (5) The project serves a StrikeForce area (see link below) (should identify the StrikeForce area).

    (6) The project serves a Promise Zone (see link below) (should identify the specific Promise Zone) and eligible applicant provides evidence of partnership with a Promise Zone Lead Applicant organization.

    For a listing of StrikeForce areas and designated Promise Zones, click on the following link: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=STRIKE_FORCE, then click the StrikeForce or Promise Zones button from the left menu. For a mapping tool identifying census tracts with poverty greater than or equal to 20 percent, click on the following link: http://rdgdwe.sc.egov.usda.gov/rdpoverty/index.html.

    2. Review and Selection Process (a) Rating and Ranking

    Applications will be rated and ranked on a national basis by a review panel based on the “Evaluation Criteria” contained in this Notice.

    If there is a tied score after the applications have been rated and ranked, the tie will be resolved by reviewing the scores for ”Building Capacity and Expertise” and the applicant with the highest score in that category will receive a higher ranking. If the scores for “Building Capacity and Expertise” are the same, the scores will be compared for the next criterion, in sequential order, until one highest score can be determined.

    (b) Initial Screening

    The Agency will screen each application to determine eligibility during the period immediately following the application deadline. Listed below are examples of reasons for rejection from previous funding rounds. The following reasons for rejection are not all inclusive; however, they represent the majority of the applications previously rejected.

    (1) Recipients were not located in eligible rural areas based on the definition in this Notice.

    (2) Applicants failed to provide evidence of recipient's status, i.e., documentation supporting nonprofit evidence of organization.

    (3) Applicants failed to provide evidence of committed matching funds or matching funds were not committed for a period at least equal to the grant performance period.

    (4) Application did not follow the RCDI structure with an intermediary and recipients.

    (5) Recipients were not identified in the application.

    (6) Intermediary did not provide evidence it had been incorporated for at least 3 years as the applicant entity.

    (7) Applicants failed to address the “Evaluation Criteria.”

    (8) The purpose of the proposal did not qualify as an eligible RCDI purpose.

    (9) Inappropriate use of funds (e.g., construction or renovations).

    (10) The applicant proposed providing financial and technical assistance directly to individuals.

    (11) The application package was not received by closing date and time.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information 1. Federal Award Notice

    Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of the Agency shall make grants in ranked order to eligible applicants under the procedures set forth in this Notice.

    Successful applicants will receive a selection letter by mail containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.

    This letter is not an authorization to begin performance. In addition, selected applicants will be requested to verify that components of the application have not changed at the time of selection and on the award obligation date, if requested by the Agency.

    The award is not approved until all information has been verified, and the awarding official of the Agency has signed Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds” and the grant agreement.

    Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification including appeal rights by mail.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Grantees will be required to do the following:

    (a) Execute a Rural Community Development Initiative Grant Agreement.

    (b) Execute Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

    (c) Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements. Provide receipts for expenditures, timesheets and any other documentation to support the request for reimbursement.

    (d) Provide financial status and project performance reports on a quarterly basis starting with the first full quarter after the grant award.

    (e) Maintain a financial management system that is acceptable to the Agency.

    (f) Ensure that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing RCDI grant funds and matching funds. Receipts for expenditures will be included in this documentation.

    (g) Provide annual audits or management reports on Form RD 442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity,” and Form RD 442-3, “Balance Sheet,” depending on the amount of Federal funds expended and the outstanding balance.

    (h) Collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain the same data on beneficiaries. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” (62 FR 58782), October 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency.

    (i) Provide a final project performance report.

    (j) Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees.

    (k) The intermediary and recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Executive Order 12250, Age Act of 1975, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

    (l) The grantee must comply with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable Code of Federal Regulations, and any successor regulations:

    (i) 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements For Federal Awards).

    (ii) 2 CFR parts 417 and 180 (Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement).

    (m) Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.

    3. Reporting

    After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following, as indicated in the Grant Agreement:

    (a) SF-425, “Federal Financial Report” and SF-PPR, “Performance Progress Report” will be required on a quarterly basis (due 30 working days after each calendar quarter). The Performance Progress Report shall include the elements described in the grant agreement.

    (b) Final financial and performance reports will be due 90 calendar days after the period of performance end date.

    (c) A summary at the end of the final report with elements as described in the grant agreement to assist in documenting the annual performance goals of the RCDI program for Congress.

    G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact

    Contact the Rural Development office in the State where the applicant's headquarters is located. A list of Rural Development State Offices contacts can be found via http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RCDI_State_Contacts.pdf.

    H. Other Information

    Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants, OMB No. 1894-0010 (applies to nonprofit applicants only—submission is optional).

    No reimbursement will be made for any funds expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement unless the intermediary is a non-profit or educational entity and has requested and received written Agency approval of the costs prior to the actual expenditure.

    This exception is applicable for up to 90 days prior to grant closing and only applies to grantees that have received written approval but have not executed the RCDI Grant Agreement.

    The Agency cannot retroactively approve reimbursement for expenditures prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

    Program Definitions

    Agency—The Rural Housing Service (RHS) or its successor.

    Beneficiary—Entities or individuals that receive benefits from assistance provided by the recipient.

    Capacity—The ability of a recipient to implement housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects.

    Conflict of interest—A situation in which a person or entity has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that make it difficult for the person or business to act impartially. Regarding use of both grant and matching funds, Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent conflict of interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their immediate family members having a financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; or that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. Specifically, project funds may not be used for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, owner(s) and their immediate family members. An example of conflict of interest occurs when the grantee's employees, board of directors, or the immediate family of either, have the appearance of a professional or personal financial interest in the recipients receiving the benefits or services of the grant.

    Federally recognized tribes—Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, based on the most recent notice in the Federal Register published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribally Designated Housing Entities are eligible RCDI recipients.

    Financial assistance—Funds, not to exceed $10,000 per award, used by the intermediary to purchase supplies and equipment to build the recipient's capacity.

    Funds—The RCDI grant and matching money.

    Intermediary—A qualified private, nonprofit (including faith-based and community organizations and philanthropic organizations), or public (including tribal) organization that provides financial and technical assistance to multiple recipients.

    Low-income rural community—An authority, district, economic development authority, regional council, or unit of government representing an incorporated city, town, village, county, township, parish, or borough whose income is at or below 80 percent of either the state or national Median Household Income as measured by the 2010 Census.

    Matching funds—Cash or confirmed funding commitments. Matching funds must be at least equal to the grant amount and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period.

    Recipient—-The entity that receives the financial and technical assistance from the Intermediary. The recipient must be a nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community or a federally recognized Tribe.

    Rural and rural area—Any area other than (i) a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; and (ii) the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town.

    Technical assistance—Skilled help in improving the recipient's abilities in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

    Non-Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) By mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email: [email protected]

    Persons With Disabilities

    Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

    Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email.

    If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Appeal Process

    All adverse determinations regarding applicant eligibility and the awarding of points as part of the selection process are appealable pursuant to 7 CFR part 11. Instructions on the appeal process will be provided at the time an applicant is notified of the adverse decision.

    In the event the applicant is awarded a grant that is less than the amount requested, the applicant will be required to modify its application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the grant agreement. The Agency reserves the right to reduce or withdraw the award if acceptable modifications are not submitted by the awardee within 15 working days from the date the request for modification is made. Any modifications must be within the scope of the original application.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Tony Hernandez, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12070 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Request for Proposals: Farm Labor Housing Technical Assistance Grants AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Request for Proposal (RFP) announces an availability of funds and the timeframe to submit proposals for Farm Labor Housing Technical Assistance (FLH-TA) grants. Section 516(i) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (Act), authorizes the Rural Housing Service (RHS) to provide financial assistance (grants) to eligible private and public non-profit agencies to encourage the development of domestic and migrant farm labor housing projects. This RFP requests proposals from qualified private and public non-profit agencies to provide technical assistance to groups who qualify for FLH loans and grants.

    Work performed under these grants is expected to result in an increased submission of quality applications for FLH loans and grants under the Section 514 and Section 516 programs and as a result an increase in the availability of decent, safe, and sanitary housing for farm laborers.

    DATES:

    The deadline for receipt of all applications in response to this RFP is 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on July 22, 2016. The application closing deadline is firm as to date and hour. RHS will not consider any application that is received after the closing deadline. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline. Acceptance by a post office or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), Cash on Delivery (COD), and postage due applications will not be accepted.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications should be submitted to the USDA—Rural Housing Service; Attention: Mirna Reyes-Bible, Finance and Loan Analyst, Multi-Family Housing Preservation and Direct Loan Division, STOP 0781 (Room 1243-S), USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0781. RHS will date and time stamp incoming applications to evidence timely receipt and, upon request, will provide the applicant with a written acknowledgement of receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mirna Reyes-Bible, Finance and Loan Analyst, Multi-Family Housing Preservation and Direct Loan Division, STOP 0781 (Room 1243-S), USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0781, telephone: (202) 720-1753 (this is not a toll free number), or via email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Overview Information

    Federal Agency Name: Rural Housing Service.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Request for Proposals (RFP): Farm Labor Housing Technical Assistance Grants.

    Announcement Type: Initial Announcement.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance: 10.405.

    Dates: The deadline for receipt of all applications in response to this RFP is 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on July 22, 2016. The application closing deadline is firm as to date and hour. RHS will not consider any application that is received after the closing deadline. Applicants intending to mail applications must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline. Acceptance by a post office or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), COD, and postage due applications will not be accepted.

    I. Program Description

    The technical assistance grants authorized under Section 516 of the Act are for the purpose of encouraging the development of domestic and migrant FLH projects under Sections 514 and 516 of the Act. RHS regulations for Section 514 and Section 516 FLH program are published at 7 CFR part 3560. Further requirements for technical assistance grants can be found at 7 CFR part 3560, subpart L. Proposals must demonstrate the capacity to provide the intended technical assistance.

    II. Award Information

    RHS will publish on its Web site, http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/farm-labor-housing-direct-loans-grants, the amount of funding available in FY 2016. RHS intends to award one grant for each of three geographic regions listed below. When establishing the three regions, and amount of funding available for each region, consideration was given to such factors as farmworker migration patterns and the similarity of agricultural products and labor needs within certain areas of the United States. A single applicant may submit grant proposals for more than one region; however, separate proposals must be submitted for each region.

    Eastern Region: AL, CT, DE, FL, GA, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, PR, RI, SC, TN, VI, VT, VA, and WV.

    Central Region: AR, IL, IA, KS, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE., ND, OK, SD, TX, NM, and WI.

    Western Region: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY, Pacific Territories, and Regions

    The RHS has the authority under the Act to utilize up to 10 percent of its Section 516 appropriations for FLH-TA grants. The disbursement of grant funds during the grant period will be contingent upon the applicant making progress in meeting the minimum performance requirements as described in the Scope of Work section of this Notice, and the Grant Agreement including, but not limited to, the submission of loan application packages.

    III. Eligibility Information

    Eligible Applicants: Eligibility for grants under this Notice is limited to private and public non-profit agencies. Applicants must have the knowledge, ability, technical expertise, or practical experience necessary to develop and package loan and grant applications for FLH under the Section 514 and Section 516 programs (see Section IV. Application and Submission Information). In addition, applicants must possess the ability to exercise leadership, organize work, and prioritize assignments to meet work demands in a timely and cost efficient manner. The applicant may arrange for other non-profit agencies to provide services on its behalf; however, the RHS will expect the applicant to provide the overall management necessary to ensure the objectives of the grant are met. Non-profit agencies acting on behalf of the applicant must also meet the eligibility requirements stated above.

    Cost Sharing or Matching: Cost sharing is not applicable to this program.

    Minimum Performance Requirements

    (1) Applicants shall conduct outreach to broad-based non-profit organizations, non-profit organizations of farmworkers, federally recognized Indian tribes, agencies or political subdivisions of State or local Government, public agencies (such as housing authorities) and other eligible FLH organizations to further the Section 514 and Section 516 FLH programs. Outreach will consist of a minimum of 12 informational presentations to the general public annually to inform them about the Section 514 Section and 516 FLH programs.

    (2) Applicants shall conduct at least 12 one-on-one meetings annually with groups who are interested in applying for FLH loans or grants and assist such groups with the loan and grant application process.

    (3) Applicants shall assist loan and grant applicants secure funding from other sources for the purpose of leveraging those funds with RHS funds.

    (4) Applicants shall provide technical assistance during the development and construction phase of FLH proposals selected for funding.

    (5) When submitting a grant proposal, applicants need not identify the geographic location of the places they intend to target for their outreach activities, however, applicants must commit to targeting at least five areas within the grant proposal's region. All targeted areas must be distinct market areas and not be overlapping. At least four of the targeted areas must be in different States. If the proposal is selected for funding, the applicant will be required to consult with each Rural Development State Director in the proposal's region for the purpose of developing their list of targeted areas. When determining which areas to target, consideration will be given to (a) the total number of farmworkers in the area, (b) the number of farmworkers in that area who lack adequate housing, (c) the percentage of the total number of farmworkers that are without adequate housing, and (d) areas which have not recently had a Section 514 or Section 516 loan or grant funded for new construction. In addition, if selected for funding, the applicant will be required to revise their Statement of Work to identify the geographic location of the targeted areas and will submit their revised Statement of Work to the National Office approval. When submitted for approval, the applicant must also submit a summary of their consultation with the Rural Development State Directors. At grant closing, the revised Statement of Work will be attached to, and become a part of, the grant agreement.

    (6) During the grant period, each applicant must submit a minimum number of loan application packages to the Agency for funding consideration. The minimum number shall be the greater of (a) at least nine loan application packages for the Eastern and Western Regions and at least seven for the Central Region or, (b) a total number of loan application packages that is equal to 70 percent of the number of areas the applicant's proposal committed to targeting. Fractional percentages shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For example, if the applicant's proposal committed to targeting 13 areas, then the applicant must submit at least 10 loan application packages during the grant period (13 areas × 70 percent = 9.1 rounded up to 10). The disbursement of grant funds during the grant period will be contingent upon the applicant making progress in meeting this minimum performance requirement. More than one application package for the same market area will not be considered unless the applicant submits documentation of the need for more than one FLH facility.

    (7) Provide training to applicants of FLH loans and grants to assist them in their ability to manage FLH.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    Intergovernmental Review. The Technical Assistant program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Expenses incurred in applying for this Notice will be borne by and be at the applicant's risk.

    The application process will be in two phases; the initial application (or proposal) and the submission of a formal application. Only those proposals that are selected for funding will be invited to submit formal applications. All proposals must include the following:

    (1) A summary page listing the following items. This information should be double-spaced between items and not be in narrative form.

    a. Applicant's name,

    b. Applicant's Taxpayer Identification Number,

    c. Applicant's address,

    d. Applicant's telephone number,

    e. Name of applicant's contact person, telephone number, and address,

    f. Amount of grant requested,

    g. The FLH-TA grant region for which the proposal is submitted (i.e., Eastern, Central, or Western Region), and

    h. Address unique entity identifier and System for Award Management (SAM). As part of the application, all applicants, except for individuals or agencies excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(d), must be: (1) Registered in the System for Award Management (SAM); (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its applications; and (3) maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or application. An award may not be made to the applicant until the applicant has complied with the unique entity identifier and SAM requirements.

    (2) A narrative describing the applicant's ability to meet the eligibility requirements stated in this Notice. If the applicant intends to have other agencies working on their behalf, the narrative must identify those agencies and address their ability to meet the stated eligibility requirements.

    (3) A detailed Statement of Work covering a 3-year period that contains measurable monthly and annual accomplishments. The applicant's Statement of Work is a critical component of the selection process. The Statement of Work must include an outreach component describing the applicant's activities to inform potentially eligible groups about the Section 514 and Section 516 FLH program. The outreach component must include a schedule of their planned outreach activities and must be included in a manner so that performance can be measured. In addition, the outreach activities must be coordinated with the appropriate RHS State Office and meet the minimum performance requirements as stated in the Scope of Work section of this Notice. The Statement of Work must state how many areas the applicant will target for their outreach activities (Note: If selected for funding, the applicant will be required to revise their Statement of Work, after consultation with Rural Development State Directors, to identify the areas that will be targeted). The Statement of Work must also include a component for training organizations on the application process and the long-term management of FLH. The Statement of Work will also describe the applicant's plans to access other funding for the development and construction of FLH and their experience in obtaining such funding. The Statement of Work must describe any duties or activities that will be performed by other agencies on behalf of the applicant.

    (4) An organizational plan that includes a staffing chart complete with name, job title, salary, hours, timelines, and descriptions of employee duties to achieve the objectives of the grant program.

    (5) Organizational documents and financial statements to evidence the applicant's status as a properly organized private or public non-profit agency and the financial ability to carry out the objectives of the grant program. If other agencies will be working on behalf of the applicant, working agreements between the applicant and those agencies must be submitted as part of the proposal and any associated cost must be included in the applicant's budget. Organizational and financial statements must also be submitted as part of the application for any agencies that will be working on behalf of the applicant to document the eligibility of those organizations.

    (6) A detailed budget plan projecting the monthly and annual expenses the applicant will incur. Costs will be limited to those that are allowed under 2 CFR part 200.

    (7) To insure that funds are equitably distributed and that there is no duplication of efforts on related projects, all applicants are to submit a list of projects they are currently involved with, whether publicly or privately supported, that are or may be, related to the objectives of this grant. In addition, the same disclosure must be provided for any agencies that will be working on behalf of the applicant.

    (8) The applicant must include a narrative describing its knowledge, demonstrated ability, or practical experience in providing training and technical assistance to applicants of loans or grants for the development of multi-family or farmworker housing. The applicant must identify the type of assistance that was applied for (loan or grant, tax credits, leveraged funding, etc.), the number of times they have provided such assistance, and the success ratio of their applications. In addition, information must be provided concerning the number of housing units, their size, their design, and the amount of grant and loan funds that were secured.

    (9) A narrative describing the applicant's knowledge and demonstrated ability in estimating development and construction costs of multi-family or farm labor housing and for obtaining the necessary permits and clearances.

    (10) A narrative describing the applicant's ability and experience in overcoming community opposition to FLH and describing the methods and techniques that they will use to overcome any such opposition, should it occur.

    (11) A separate one-page information sheet listing each of the “Application Scoring Criteria” contained in this Notice, followed by the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation that is contained in the proposal that supports these criteria.

    V. Application Review Information

    The initial application (or proposal) evaluation process designed for this RFP will consist of two phases. The first phase will evaluate the applicant's Statement of Work and the degree to which it sets forth measurable objectives that are consistent with the objectives of FLH-TA grant program. The second phase will evaluate the applicant's knowledge and ability to provide the management necessary for carrying out a FLH-TA grant program. Proposals will only compete against other proposals within the same region. Selection points will be awarded as follows:

    Phase I—Statement of Work

    The Statement of Work will be evaluated to determine the degree to which it outlines efficient and measurable monthly and annual outcomes as follows:

    a. The minimum performance requirements of this Notice require that the applicant commit to targeting at least five areas (at least four of which are in different States). The more areas the applicant commits to targeting, the more scoring points they will be awarded. As stated earlier in this Notice, the more areas the applicant commits to the more loan application packages must be submitted. The amount will be established in the Statement of Work. The number of areas within the region that the applicant has committed to targeting for outreach activities:

    (1) 5-7 targeted areas: 0 points (2) 8 targeted areas: 5 points (3) 9-10 targeted areas: 10 points (4) 11-12 targeted areas: 15 points (5) 13 or more areas: 20 points

    a. RHS wants the applicant to cover as much of the grant region as possible. RHS does not want the applicant's efforts to be concentrated in a limited number of States. For this reason, additional points will be awarded to grant proposals that target areas in more than four States (the minimum requirement is four). Applications only compete within their grant region. The grant proposal commits to targeting areas in the following number of States:

    (1) 4 States: 0 points (2) 5 States: 5 points (3) 6 States: 10 points (4) 7 States: 15 points (5) More than 7 States: 20 points Phase II—Project Management

    a. The number of successful multi-family or FLH loan or grant applications the applicant entity has assisted in developing and packaging:

    (1) 0-5 applications: 0 points (2) 6-10 applications: 10 points (3) 11-15 applications: 20 points (4) 16 or more applications: 30 points

    b. The number of groups seeking loans or grants for the development of multi-family or FLH projects that the applicant entity has provided training and technical assistance.

    (1) 0-5 groups: 0 points (2) 6-10 groups: 5 points (3) 11-15 groups: 10 points (4) 16 or more groups: 15 points

    c. The number of multi-family or FLH projects for which the applicant entity has assisted in estimating development and construction costs and obtaining the necessary permits and clearances:

    (1) 0-5 projects: 0 points (2) 6-10 projects: 5 points (3) 11-15 projects: 10 points (4) 16 or more projects: 15 points

    d. The number of times the applicant entity has encountered community opposition and was able to overcome that opposition so that farm labor housing was successfully developed.

    (1) 0-2 times: 0 points (2) 2-5 times: 5 points (3) 6-10 times: 10 points (4) 11 or more times: 15 points

    e. The number of times the applicant entity has been able to leverage funding from two or more sources for the development of a multi-family or FLH project.

    (1) 0-5 times: 0 points (2) 6-10 times: 5 points (3) 11-15 times: 10 points (4) 16 or more times: 15 points

    f. The number of FLH projects that the applicant entity has assisted with on-going management (i.e., rent-up, maintenance, etc.):

    (1) 0-5 FLH projects: 0 points (2) 6-10 FLH projects: 5 points (3) 11-15 FLH projects: 10 points (4) 16 or more FLH projects: 15 points

    The National Office will rank all pre-applications by region and distribute funds to the regions in rank order and within funding limits.

    Tie Breakers—In the event two or more proposals within a region are scored with an equal amount of points, selections will be made in the following order:

    (1) If an applicant has already had a proposal selected, their proposal will not be selected.

    (2) If all or none of the applicants with equivalent scores have already had a proposal selected, the lowest cost proposal will be selected.

    (3) If two or more proposals have equivalent scores, all or none of the applicants have already had a proposal selected, and the cost is the same, a proposal will be selected by a random lottery drawing.

    RHS will notify all applicants whether their pre-applications have been accepted or rejected and provide appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11, as appropriate.

    Reporting. Post-award reporting requirements can be found in the Grant Agreement.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The reporting requirements contained in this Notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0575-0181.

    Non-Discrimination Requirements

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English Federal—Relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal—Relay). “USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.”

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Tony Hernandez, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12068 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-2-2016] Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Subzone 249A; GE Generators (Pensacola) L.L.C.; (Wind Turbine Nacelles and Hubs); Pensacola, Florida

    On January 8, 2016, GE Generators (Pensacola) L.L.C., operator of Subzone 249A, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility in Pensacola, Florida.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 3781, January 22, 2016). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12007 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-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; 2007-2008 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On April 7, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (the CIT or the Court) issued final judgment in Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd. and Polder Inc. v. United States, Court No. 10-00059, sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of the third 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, 2007, through July 31, 2008, 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. and Polder Inc. v. United States, Court No. 10-00059, Slip Op. 14-69 (CIT June 25, 2014), dated October 10, 2014 (Third 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, 75 FR 3201(January 20, 2010), 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 January 20, 2010, the Department published its Final Results. 3 On March 17, 2010, Foshan Shunde, an exporter of the subject merchandise, and Polder, Inc., an importer of the subject merchandise, timely filed a complaint with the CIT to challenge certain aspects of the Final Results. The litigation history of this procedure is outlined below.

    3Id.

    On October 12, 2011, the Court remanded the matter.4 On June 12, 2012, the Department issued its First Redetermination, in which it determined that Foshan Shunde was: (1) Entitled to a separate rate and (2) assigned an adverse facts available (AFA) rate of 157.68 percent to Foshan Shunde.5

    4Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd., and Polder Inc. v. United States, Court No. 10-00059, Slip. Op. 11-123 (October 12, 2011) (Foshan Shunde I).

    5See 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., and Polder Inc. v. United States, dated June 12, 2012 (First Redetermination).

    Upon consideration of the First Redetermination, on April 8, 2013, the Court affirmed our assignment of a separate rate to Foshan Shunde.6 The Court, however, remanded the case to the Department to reconsider its corroboration of the 157.68 percent rate assigned to Foshan Shunde. On July 8, 2013, the Department issued its Second Redetermination, in which it explained that available Customs data corroborated to the extent practicable the 157.68 percent rate assigned to Foshan Shunde.7

    6See Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd., and Polder Inc. v. United States, Court No. 10-00059, Slip Op. 13-47 (April 8, 2013) (Foshan Shunde II).

    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 Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd., and Polder Inc. v. United States, dated July 8, 2013 (Second Redetermination).

    On June 20, 2014, the Court rejected the corroboration analysis conducted by the Department in its Second Redetermination. The Court remanded the Department's corroboration of Foshan Shunde's AFA rate for further consideration.8

    8See Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd., and Polder Inc. v. United States, Court No. 10-00059, Slip Op. 14-69 (June 20, 2014) (Foshan Shunde III).

    On October 10, 2014, the Department filed its Third Redetermination, in which it, under protest, assigned a revised AFA rate of 72.29 percent to Foshan Shunde.9 This 72.29 percent rate was the rate assigned to Separate Rate companies in the less-than-fair value investigation.10 On April 7, 2016, the Court sustained the Department's Third Redetermination, and entered final judgment.11

    9See 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., and Polder Inc. v. United States, dated October 10, 2014 (Third Redetermination).

    10See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004).

    11See Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd., and Polder Inc. v. United States, Court No. 10-00059, Slip Op. 16-35 (April 7, 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 7, 2016, judgment sustaining the Third 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, 2007, through July 31, 2008, is as follows:

    Exporter Weighted
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd 72.29

    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 Since Hardware and Foshan Shunde using the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department in the Third 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. 2016-12004 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-971] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on multilayered wood flooring (wood flooring) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. We find that the mandatory respondents, Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd. (Penghong) and The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai (Lizhong) (also known as “Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd.”), received countervailable subsidies during the POR. The final net subsidy rates are listed below in “Final Results of Administrative Review.” We are also rescinding the review for five companies that timely certified that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

    DATES:

    Effective May 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785.

    Background

    On January 11, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.1 In the Preliminary Results, we stated our intent to rescind the review for the seven companies that certified that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, provided we did not receive information from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which contradicted these companies' claims of no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On February 22, 2016, CBP notified the Department that Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Linyi Bonn), and Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd. (Changbai Mountain) made shipments to the United States. On February 26, 2016, and March 11, 2016, respectively, these two companies, withdrew their certifications of no shipments.2

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind the Review in Part; 2013, 81 FR 1169 (January 11, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    2See letter from Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd., re: “Correction of Information and Withdrawal of No Shipment Statement” dated February 26, 2016; see also letter from Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd., re: “Multilayered Wood Flooring from The People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questionnaire Response” dated March 11, 2016.

    We issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Lizhong on January 12, 2016, and received a response on January 22, 2016.3 On February 17, 2016, we received case briefs from Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture) and Penghong.4 No party filed a rebuttal brief.

    3See letter from Lizhong re: “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Lizhong's Response to the Third Supplemental Countervailing Duty Questionnaire,” (January 22, 2016) (L3SQR).

    4See letter from Fine Furniture, re: “Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief” dated February17, 2016; see also letter from Penghong, re: “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China Dalian Penghong Case Brief” dated February 17, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) 5 in combination with a core. Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; and 4418.72.9500.

    5 A “veneer” is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is referred to as a ply when assembled.

    While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

    A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China” dated concurrently with this notice (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the parties' briefs are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix I. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    We received timely filed no-shipment certifications from Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology Co., Ltd., Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd., Shenyang Senwang Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Changbai Mountain, and Linyi Bonn.6 We received from CBP evidence that Changbai Mountain and Linyi Bonn made shipments to the United States during the POR. Both companies subsequently withdrew their certifications of no shipments, and remain subject to this administrative review. The Department is rescinding the administrative review of Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology Co., Ltd., Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd., and Shenyang Senwang Wooden Industry Co., Ltd.

    6See letter from Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology Co., Ltd., “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China-No Sales Certification,” dated April 3, 2015; see also letter from Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co, Ltd., Jiangsu Mingle Flooring CO., Ltd., Shenyang Senwang Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd., and Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd., “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Submission of No Shipment Certifications,” dated April 6, 2015.

    Methodology

    We conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Decision Memorandum.

    7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and, section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for each of the mandatory respondents, Penghong and Lizhong.

    For the non-selected respondents, we followed the Department's practice, which is to base the subsidy rates on an average of the subsidy rates calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de minimis rates or rates based entirely on adverse facts available.8 In this case, we assigned to the non-selected respondents the simple average of the rates calculated for Penghong and Lizhong. We are using a simple, rather than a weighted, average due to inconsistent units of measure in the publicly ranged quantity and value data provided by Penghong and Lizhong.

    8See, e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the 13th (2008) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 18806, 18811 (April 13, 2010), unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the 13th (2008) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 37386 (June 29, 2010).

    We find the countervailable subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows: 9

    9 The Department published a Correction of Notice of Initiation, 80 FR 11166 (March 2, 2015) and removed Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co. Ltd.(“Layo Wood”) because this company was excluded from the countervailing duty order in the investigation.

    Producer/exporter Net subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd. (Penghong) 1.83 Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd. (aka The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai); Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd 0.92 A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd 1.38 Anhui Longhua Bamboo Product Co., Ltd 1.38 Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 1.38 Baishan Huafeng Wood Product Co., Ltd 1.38 Baiying Furniture Manufacturer Co., Ltd 1.38 Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd 1.38 Benxi Wood Company 1.38 Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd 1.38 Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd 1.38 Cheng Hang Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd 1.38 Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Dalian Huade Wood Product Co., Ltd 1.38 Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd 1.38 Dalian Jiuyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co., Ltd 1.38 Dalian Xinjinghua Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd 1.38 Dazhuang Floor Co. (dba Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd.) 1.38 Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC 1.38 Dun Hua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Dunhua Jisheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Dunhua Shengda Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Era Solar Co., Ltd 1.38 Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited 1.38 Fu Lik Timber (HK) Co., Ltd 1.38 Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd 1.38 Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd 1.38 GTP International Ltd 1.38 Guangdong Fu Lin Timber Technology Limited 1.38 Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Guangzhou Homebon Timber Manufacturing Co., Ltd 1.38 Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd 1.38 Guangzhou Panyu Shatou Trading Co., Ltd 1.38 Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd 1.38 HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd 1.38 HaiLin XinCheng Wooden Products, Ltd 1.38 Hangzhou Dazhuang Floor Co., Ltd. (dba Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd.) 1.38 Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd 1.38 Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd 1.38 Henan Xingwangjia Technology Co., Ltd 1.38 Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc 1.38 Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 1.38 Huzhou Fuma Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd 1.38 Huzhou Ruifeng Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 1.38 Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co., Ltd 1.38 Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co, Ltd 1.38 Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd 1.38 Jiangsu Yuhui International Trade Co., Ltd 1.38 Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd 1.38 Jiaxing Hengtong Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd 1.38 Jilin Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Karly Wood Product Limited 1.38 Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 1.38 Linyi Anying Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd 1.38 Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd 1.38 Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd 1.38 Ningbo Tianyi Bamboo & Wood Products Co., Ltd 1.38 Pinge Timber Manufacturing (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 1.38 Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd 1.38 Puli Trading Limited 1.38 Qingdao Barry Flooring Co., Ltd 1.38 Riverside Plywood Corporation 1.38 Samling Riverside Co., Ltd 1.38 Shanghai Anxin (Weiguang) Timber Co., Ltd 1.38 Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd 1.38 Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Shanghai Shenlin Corporation 1.38 Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd 1.38 Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd 1.38 Sino-Maple (JiangSu) Co., Ltd 1.38 Suzhou Anxin Weiguang Timber Co., Ltd 1.38 Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd10 1.38 Vicwood Industry (Suzhou) Co. Ltd 1.38 Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd 1.38 Xuzhou Antop International Trade Co., Ltd 1.38 Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Yekalon Industry, Inc 1.38 Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Anji Xinfeng Bamboo and Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Desheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Haoyun Wooden Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Jeson Wood Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd 1.38 Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd 1.38
    Assessment Rates

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) fifteen days after publication of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review in the amounts shown above.

    10See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: 2012 (80 FR 41007, July 14, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23-24. We have omitted Anhui Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd. and Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry from the notice because we have now included the correct spelling of these companies. Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC and Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd. were listed twice in the Initiation Notice.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by the Amended Order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for each company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Changes Since the Preliminary Results IV. Scope of the Order V. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Include the Name of Fine Furniture's Affiliate, Double F Limited (Double F), in Its Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Comment 2: Whether Penghong's Electricity Rates Are Calculated Incorrectly VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-12005 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE640 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 49 post-workshop webinar for Gulf of Mexico Data-limited Species.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 49 assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Data-limited Species will consist of two in-person workshops and a series of webinars. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 49 post-workshop webinar will be held from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on June 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data/Assessment Workshop, and (2) a series of webinars. The product of the Data/Assessment Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the SEDAR 49 post-workshop webinar are as follows:

    1. Panelists will review the recommendations from the Data Workshop, and finalize any data issues still outstanding.

    2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate data sets for use in the assessment modeling.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12061 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE638 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Advisory Panel 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 Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: 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 Advisory Panel 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 Advisory Panel 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 Advisory Panel will provide research recommendations for the 2017/18 Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) federal funding announcement and potentially discuss other RSA policies and program details. The Advisory Panel will give a brief update on the required five-year review of the limited access general category IFQ program. Other business may be discussed.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, 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 18, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12059 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE610 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet June 6 through June 14, 2016.

    DATES:

    The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. in the Pavilion Room, Kodiak Convention Center on Wednesday, June 8, continuing through Tuesday, June 14, 2016. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. in the Harbor Room, Kodiak Best Western on Monday, June 6 and continue through Wednesday, June 8, 2016. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. at the Elks Lodge on Tuesday, June 7, and continue through Saturday, June 11, 2016. The Enforcement Committee will meet in the Stellar Room, Kodiak Convention Center (time and date to be determined). The Legislative Committee will meet in the Pavilion Room (time and date to be determined).

    ADDRESSES:

    The Council meeting will be held at the Kodiak Harbor Convention Center, 236 Rezanof Drive, Kodiak, AK 99615. The SSC will meet at the Kodiak Best Western, 236 Rezanof Drive, Kodiak, AK 99615. The AP will meet at the Elks Lodge, 102 W. Marine Way, Kodiak, AK 99615.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda Monday, June 6, 2016 Through Tuesday, June 14, 2016

    Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.

    (1) Executive Director's Report (2) NMFS Management Report (including update on recusal determination) (3) NOAA Enforcement Report (4) ADF&G Report (5) USCG Report (6) USFWS Report (7) Protected Species Report (8) NPRB Report (9) Observer Program (a) Annual Report (b) Estimation Methods for Variance—(SSC only), and (c) Observer Advisory Committee (OAC) Report (10) Bering Sea Aleutian Island (BSAI) Crab Plan Team Report (11) BSAI 10-Year-Review (12) Tanner Crab Custom Processing Cap (13) Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Trawl Bycatch Management (14) Squid to Ecosystem Component Category (15) Determine Research Priorities (16) Electronic Monitoring (EM)—Review Analytical Components (SSC Only) (17) Pacific Cod Stock Assessment Models (SSC Only) (18) Staff Tasking

    The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council except B reports.

    The SSC agenda will include the following issues:

    (1) Observer Program—Estimation Methods for Variance (2) Electronic Monitoring (EM)—Review Analytical Components (3) Pacific Cod Stock Assessment Models (4) BSAI Crab Plan Team Report (5) BSAI Crab 10-Year-Review (6) Tanner Crab Custom Processing Cap (7) Squid to Ecosystem Component Category (8) Research Priorities In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Councils primary peer review panel for scientific information as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12041 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0649-XE636 Gulf of Mexico 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 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Data Collection Technical Committee.

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene Monday, June 6, 2016, from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place at the Council's office.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. John Froeschke, Fishery Biologist-Statistician, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected]; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:

    The Data Collection Technical Committee will meet to discuss options to implement electronic reporting of fisheries data in the Gulf of Mexico for-hire sector and provide recommendations to the Gulf Council at the June 2016 Council meeting. The objectives are to improve timeliness and data quality of fisheries data from the federal for-hire sector that will be used to support fisheries science and management. The Committee will receive an overview of the electronic reporting program for federally permitted headboats and a presentation describing decision points (e.g., technology used, reporting frequency and data to be collected) in a potential program for federally permitted Gulf of Mexico for-hire vessels. The committee is expected to discuss and provide feedback on the decision points raised in the presentations and provide recommendations based upon the strengths, limitations, and value of the various electronic reporting program options under consideration.

    Meeting Adjourns

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the File Server link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “Data Collection Technical Committee”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Technical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Technical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12040 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE639 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee 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 Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; phone: (617) 567-6789; fax: (617) 461-0798.

    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 receive an update from the Plan Development Team (PDT) on Committee tasking regarding estimated discards and associated CVs and a draft white paper examining the groundfish monitoring program; and make recommendations to the Council. They will also review PDT work to date on developing a sub-ACL for the scallop fishery for northern windowpane flounder and allocating the northern windowpane flounder stock to sectors in the groundfish fishery; and make recommendations to the Council regarding the development of alternatives. The committee will also review PDT work to date on this action that considers revising the Georges Bank haddock sub-ACL and associated accountability measures; and make recommendations to the Council regarding the development of alternatives. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, 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 18, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12060 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE637 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR Data Best Practices Standing Panel Webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR Data Best Practices Panel will develop, review, and evaluate best practice recommendations for SEDAR Data Workshops. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR Data Best Practices Standing Panel webinar will be held on Monday, June 6, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; www.sedarweb.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The SEDAR Data Best Practices Standing Panel is charged with developing, reviewing, and evaluating best practice recommendations for SEDAR Data Workshops. This will be the second meeting of this group. The items of discussion for this webinar are as follows:

    1. Finalize terms of reference, incorporating SEDAR Steering Committee feedback as necessary, that specify the Panel's purpose and approach.

    2. Begin discussions on SEDAR Data Best Practices living document.

    3. Other business.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12037 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Processing (Updating) ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this extension of a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0031 inquiry” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7728; or by email to [email protected] with “0651-0031 inquiry” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required by 35 U.S.C. 131 to examine an application for patent and, when appropriate, issue a patent. The USPTO is also required to publish patent applications, with certain exceptions, promptly after the expiration of a period of eighteen months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under Title 35, United States Code (“eighteen-month publication”). Certain situations may arise which require that additional information be supplied in order for the USPTO to further process the patent or application. The USPTO administers the statutes through various sections of the rules of practice in 37 CFR part 1.

    The information in this collection can be used by the USPTO to continue the processing of the patent or application to ensure that applicants are complying with the patent regulations and to aid in the prosecution of the application.

    II. Method of Collection

    The forms associated with this collection may be downloaded from the USPTO Web site in Portable Document Format (PDF), filled out electronically, and then either printed for mailing or submitted to the USPTO online through EFS-Web. The “EFS-Web only” items in this collection must be submitted to the USPTO online through EFS-Web. In addition, the USPTO provides an electronic interface on its Web site that the public can use to submit the information associated with the Electronic Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0031.

    IC Instruments and Forms: PTO/AIA/22, PTO/AIA/24, PTO/AIA/24B, PTO/AIA/31, PTO/AIA/32, PTO/AIA/33, PTO/AIA/40, PTO/AIA/41, PTO/AIA/96, PTO/SB/08a, PTO/SB/08b, PTO/SB/17i, PTO/SB/21, PTO/SB/22, PTO/SB/24, PTO/SB/24B, PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/SB/27, PTO/SB/30, PTO/SB/31, PTO/SB/32, PTO/SB/33, PTO/SB/35, PTO/SB/36, PTO/SB/37, PTO/SB/38, PTO/SB/39, PTO/SB/43, PTO/SB/61, PTO/SB/63, PTO/SB/64, PTO/SB/64a, PTO/SB/67, PTO/SB/68, PTO/SB/91, PTO/SB/92, PTO/SB/96, PTO/SB/97, PTO/SB/130, PTO-2053-A/B, PTO-2054-A/B, PTO-2055-A/B, PTOL-413A, and PTOL-413C.

    Type of Review: Revision of a Previously-Existing Information Collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and non-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,542,082 responses per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public between 2 minutes (.03 hours) and 8 hours to submit a single item in this collection depending on the instrument used, including the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or petition, and submit the completed request to the USPTO. The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this collection are shown in the table below.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 3,631,187.33 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $952,818,894.17. The USPTO expects that attorneys and/or paralegals will complete the instruments listed in the table below. The professional hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals, based on AIPLA's 2015 Report of the Economic Survey, are $410 and $125 respectively. Using these hourly rates, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $952,818,894.17 per year.

    IC No. Item Estimated
  • response time
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Rate
  • ($/hr)
  • (a) (b) (a) × (b)/60 = (c) (d) 1 EFS-Web IDS (Information Disclosure Statements) that do not require the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) 120 635,000 1,270,000.00 410.00 1 Information Disclosure Statements that do not require the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) 120 20,000 40,000.00 410.00 1 EFS-Web IDS (Information Disclosure Statements) that require the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) 120 115,000 230,000.00 410.00 1 Information Disclosure Statements that require the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) 120 5,000 10,000.00 410.00 2 Electronic Transmittal Form 120 850,000 1,700,000.00 125.00 2 Transmittal Form 120 50,000 100,000.00 125.00 3 Electronic Petition for Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) 6 290,000 29,000.00 125.00 3 Petition for Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) 6 10,000 1,000.00 125.00 4 Electronic Express Abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138 12 4,800 960.00 125.00 4 Express Abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138 12 200 40.00 125.00 5 Electronic Statutory Disclaimers (including terminal disclaimers) 12 58,000 11,600.00 410.00 5 Statutory Disclaimers (including terminal disclaimers) 12 2,000 400.00 410.00 6 Electronic Request for Expedited Examination of a Design Application 6 390 39.00 410.00 6 Request for Expedited Examination of a Design Application 6 10 1.00 410.00 7 Electronic Notice of Appeal 12 28,000 5,600.00 410.00 7 Notice of Appeal 12 1,000 200.00 410.00 8 Electronic Petition for Revival of an Application for Patent Abandoned Unintentionally 60 7,500 7,500.00 410.00 8 Petition for Revival of an Application for Patent Abandoned Unintentionally 60 500 500.00 410.00 9 Electronic Petition for Revival of an Application for Patent Abandoned for Failure to Notify the Office of a Foreign or International Filing 60 190 190.00 410.00 9 Petition for Revival of an Application for Patent Abandoned for Failure to Notify the Office of a Foreign or International Filing 60 10 10.00 $410.00 10 Electronic Requests to Access, Inspect and Copy 12 95,000 19,000.00 125.00 10 Requests to Access, Inspect and Copy 12 5,000 1,000.00 125.00 11 Electronic Deposit Account Order Form 12 1,600 320.00 125.00 11 Deposit Account Order Form 12 100 20.00 125.00 12 Electronic Certificates of Mailing or Transmission 2 750,000 25,000.00 125.00 12 Certificates of Mailing or Transmission 2 50,000 1,666.66 125.00 13 Electronic Statement Under 37 CFR 3.73(c) 12 240,000 48,000.00 410.00 13 Statement Under 37 CFR 3.73(c) 12 10,000 2,000.00 410.00 14 Electronic Non-publication Request 6 23,000 2,300.00 410.00 14 Non-publication Request 6 1,000 100.00 410.00 15 Electronic Rescission of Previous Non-publication Request (35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(ii) and, if applicable, Notice of Foreign Filing (35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) 6 900 90.00 410.00 15 Rescission of Previous Non-publication Request (35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(ii) and, if applicable, Notice of Foreign Filing (35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) 6 50 5.00 410.00 16 Electronic Filing System (EFS) Copy of Application for Publication 150 1 2.50 125.00 17 Copy of File Content Showing Redactions 240 1 4.00 410.00 18 Copy of the Applicant or Patentee's Record of the Application (including copies of the correspondence, list of the correspondence, and statements verifying whether the record is complete or not) 120 10 20.00 125.00 19 EFS-Web Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Transmittal 12 165,000 33,000.00 410.00 19 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Transmittal 12 5,000 1,000.00 410.00 20 Electronic Request for Oral Hearing Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 12 950 190.00 410.00 20 Request for Oral Hearing Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 12 50 10.00 410.00 21 Electronic Request for Suspension of Action or Deferral of Examination Under 37 CFR 1.103(b), (c), or (d) 12 700 140.00 410.00 21 Request for Suspension of Action or Deferral of Examination Under 37 CFR 1.103(b), (c), or (d) 12 50 10.00 410.00 22 EFS-Web Request for Voluntary Publication or Republication (includes publication fee for republication) 12 290 58.00 125.00 22 Request for Voluntary Publication or Republication (includes publication fee for republication) 12 10 2.00 125.00 23 Electronic Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form 24 11,000 4,400.00 410.00 23 Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form 24 3,500 1,400.00 410.00 24 Electronic Processing Fee Under 37 CFR 1.17(i) Transmittal 5 340 28.33 410.00 24 Processing Fee Under 37 CFR 1.17(i) Transmittal 5 10 0.83 410.00 25 Electronic Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application(s) Under 37 CFR 1.55(h) 8 11,500 1,533.33 410.00 25 Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application (s) Under 37 CFR 1.55(h) 8 500 66.67 410.00 26 Electronic Authorization or Rescission of Authorization to Permit Access to Application-as-filed by Participating Offices Under 37 CFR 1.14(h) 6 14,500 1,450.00 410.00 26 Authorization or Rescission of Authorization to Permit Access to Application-as-filed by Participating Offices Under 37 CFR 1.14(h) 6 500 50.00 410.00 27 Electronic Petition for Express Abandonment to Obtain a Refund 12 1,550 310.00 410.00 27 Petition for Express Abandonment to Obtain a Refund 12 50 10.00 410.00 28 Electronic Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review 300 10,500 52,500.00 410.00 28 Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review 300 500 2,500.00 410.00 29 EFS-Web Request for Corrected Filing Receipt 5 29,000 2,416.67 125.00 29 Request for Corrected Filing Receipt 5 1,000 83.33 125.00 30 Request for First Action Interview (Pilot Program) (Electronic only) 150 1,200 3,000.00 410.00 31 Petition to Make Special Based on Age for Advancement of Examination under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) (EFS-Web only) 120 2,000 4,000.00 410.00 32 Electronic Filing a submission after final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.129(a)) 480 110 880.00 410.00 32 Filing a submission after final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.129(a)) 480 10 80.00 410.00 33 Electronic correction of inventorship after first office action on the merits 45 2,900 2,175.00 410.00 33 Correction of inventorship after first office action on the merits 45 100 75.00 410.00 34 Electronic request for correction in a patent application relating to inventorship or an inventor name, or order of names, other than in a reissue application (37 CFR 1.48) 45 14,500 10,875.00 410.00 34 Request for correction in a patent application relating to inventorship or an inventor name, or order of names, other than in a reissue application (37 CFR 1.48) 45 500 375.00 410.00 35 Electronic request to correct or update the name of the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(1), or change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2) 12 9,500 1,900.00 410.00 35 Request to correct or update the name of the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(1), or change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2) 12 500 100.00 410.00 Total 3,542,082 3,631,187.33

    Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $420,815,258.45. There are no recordkeeping, maintenance, or capital start-up costs associated with this information collection. There is, however, a non-hour cost burden in the form of postage costs and filing fees.

    Postage

    The public may submit the paper forms and petitions in this collection to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. If the submission is sent by first-class mail, the public may also include a signed certification of the date of mailing in order to receive credit for timely filing. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that approximately 167,161 submissions per year may be mailed. The USPTO estimates that the average submission will be mailed in a standard flat-rate priority mail envelope at a cost of $6.45, resulting in a total postage cost of $1,078,188.45.

    Filing Fees IC No. Item Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Filing fee
  • per response *
  • Total annual
  • (non-hour)
  • cost burden
  • (a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c) 1 Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) that require the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) 90,000 $180.00 $16,200,000.00 1 IDS that require the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) (small entity) S: 27,500
  • M: 2,500
  • S: $90.00
  • M: $45.00
  • S: $2,475,000.00
  • M: $112,500.00
  • 3 One-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) 102,500 $200.00 $20,500,000.00 3 One-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) (small entity) S: 38,000
  • M: 4,000
  • S: $100.00
  • M: $50.00
  • S: $3,800,000.00
  • M: $200,000.00
  • 3 Two-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) 43,600 $600.00 $26,160,000.00 3 Two-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) (small entity) S: 22,000
  • M: 2,100
  • S: $300.00
  • M: $150.00
  • S: $6,600,000.00
  • M: $315,000.00
  • 3 Three-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) 40,000 $1,400.00 $56,000,000.00 3 Three-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) (small entity) S: 32,000
  • M: 3,000
  • S: $700.00
  • M: $350.00
  • S: $22,400,000.00
  • M: $1,050,000.00
  • 3 Four-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) 2,500 $2,200.00 $5,500,000.00 3 Four-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) (small entity) S: 2,500
  • M: 350
  • S: $1,100.00 M: $550.00 S: $2,750,000.00
  • M: $192,500.00
  • 3 Five-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) 3,500 $3,000.00 $10,500,000.00 3 Five-month Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) (small entity) S: 3,700
  • M: 250
  • S: $1,000.00 M: $500.00 S: $3,700,000.00
  • M: $125,000.00
  • 5 Statutory Disclaimer (including terminal disclaimer) 60,000 $160.00 $9,600,000.00 5 Statutory Disclaimer (including terminal disclaimer) (small entity) 6,289 $160.00 $1,006,240.00 6 Request for Expedited Examination of a Design Application 200 $900.00 $180,000.00 6 Request for Expedited Examination of a Design Application (small entity) S: 160
  • M: 40
  • S: $450.00
  • M: $225.00
  • S: $72,000.00
  • M: $9,000.00
  • 7 Notice of Appeal 22,500 $800.00 $18,000,000.00 7 Notice of Appeal (small entity) S: 6,000
  • M: 500
  • S: $400.00
  • M: $200.00
  • S: $2,400,000.00
  • M: $100,000.00
  • 8 Petition for Revival of an Application for Patent Abandoned Unintentionally 3,500 $1,700.00 $5,950,000.00 8 Petition for Revival of an Application for Patent Abandoned Unintentionally (small entity) 4,500 $850.00 $3,825,000.00 9 Petition for revival of an application for patent abandoned for failure to notify the office of a foreign or international filing 150 $1,700.00 $255,000.00 9 Petition for revival of an application for patent abandoned for failure to notify the office of a foreign or international filing (small entity) 50 $850.00 $42,500.00 17 Copy of File Content Showing Redactions 1 $130.00 $130.00 19 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Transmittal (First Request) 78,400 $1,200.00 $94,080,000.00 19 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Transmittal (First Request) (small entity) S: 28,000
  • M: 5,600
  • S: $600.00
  • M: $300.00
  • S: $16,800,000.00
  • M: $1,680,000.00
  • 19 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Transmittal (Second and Subsequent Requests) 40,600 $1,700.00 $69,020,000.00 19 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Transmittal (Second and Subsequent Requests) (small entity) S: 14,500
  • M: 2,900
  • S: $850.00
  • M: $425.00
  • S: $12,325,000.00
  • M: $1,232,500.00
  • 20 Request for Oral Hearing Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 700 $1,300 $910,000.00 20 Request for Oral Hearing Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (small entity) S: 240
  • M: 10
  • S: $650.00
  • M: $325.00
  • S: $156,000.00
  • M: $3,250.00
  • 21 Request for Suspension of Action or Deferral of Examination Under 37 CFR 1.103(b), (c), or (d) 520 $140.00 $72,800.00 21 Request for Suspension of Action or Deferral of Examination Under 37 CFR 1.103(b), (c), or (d) (small entity) S: 190
  • M: 40
  • S: $70.00
  • M: $35.00
  • S: $13,300.00
  • M: $1,400.00
  • 22 Request for Voluntary Publication or Republication (includes publication fee for republication) 300 $130.00 $39,000.00 24 Processing Fee Under 37 CFR 1.17(i) Transmittal 340 $130.00 $44,200.00 32 Filing a submission after final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.129(a)) 60 $840.00 $50,400.00 32 Filing a submission after final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.129(a)) (small entity) S: 50
  • M: 10
  • S: $420.00
  • M: $210.00
  • S: $21,000.00
  • M: $2,100.00
  • 33 Correction of inventorship after first office action on the merits 2,100 $600.00 $1,260,000.00 33 Correction of inventorship after first office action on the merits (small entity) S: 750
  • M: 150
  • S: $300.00
  • M: $150.00
  • S: $225,000.00
  • M: $22,500.00
  • 34 Request for correction in a patent application relating to inventorship or an inventor name, or order of names, other than in a reissue application (37 CFR 1.48) 10,500 $140.00 $1,470,000.00 34 Request for correction in a patent application relating to inventorship or an inventor name, or order of names, other than in a reissue application (37 CFR 1.48) S: 3,750
  • M: 750
  • S: $70.00
  • M: $35.00
  • S: $262,500.00
  • M: $26,250.00
  • Total 740,425 $419,737,070.00 * “S” and “M” denote “Small Entity” and “Micro Entity” and reference the lower fee rates offered to small entities.

    Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection will be $420,815,258.45, with $1,078,188.45 in postage costs and $419,737,070.00 in filing fees.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on:

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

    (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

    (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, OCIO, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12042 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2016-0024] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Policy to Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs; Information Collection.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before June 22, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Policy to Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs; Information Collection.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0039.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of an existing information collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit entities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100.

    Abstract: In subsection 1032(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5532(e), Congress gave the Bureau authority to provide certain legal protections to companies to conduct trial disclosure programs. This authority can be used to help further the Bureau's statutory objective, stated in subsection 1021(b)(5) of the Act, to “facilitate access and innovation” in the “markets for consumer financial products and services.” There are two main purposes for the use of these eligibility criteria. First, the specific criteria are intended to help the Bureau identify trial disclosure proposals that hold the potential to demonstrate improvements in disclosure to consumers, while controlling appropriately for risks to consumers. Second, by using standardized criteria across all submitters, the Bureau will be better placed to assess the merits of different proposals relative to each other.

    Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on March 9, 2016, (80 FR 12479). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12082 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No.: CFPB-2016-0023] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Equal Access to Justice Act.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before June 22, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Equal Access to Justice Act.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0040.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15.

    Abstract: The Equal Access to Justice Act (the Act) provides for payment of fees and expenses to eligible parties who have prevailed against the Bureau in certain administrative proceedings. In order to obtain an award, the statute and associated regulations (12 CFR part 1071) require the filing of an application that shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under the Act. The Bureau regulations implementing the Act require the collection of information related to the application for an award in 12 CFR part 1071, subparts B, C.

    Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on March 9, 2016, (80 FR 12478). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12081 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P\
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Meeting of the U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Air Force is withdrawing the notice, Meeting of the U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors Notice of Meeting that published May 17, 2016 at 81 FR 30521.

    DATES:

    This withdrawal is effective May 23, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Air Force is withdrawing the meeting notice of the U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors that published May 17, 2016 at 81 FR 30521. The Department received notification from the OPR on 18 May 2016 that the location of the meeting was changed by the Congressional office. The Department will publish a new notice with the updated information in the Federal Register.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12145 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, Reserve Forces Policy Board, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will take place.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, June 8, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Alex Sabol, Designated Federal Officer, (703) 681-0577 (Voice), (703) 681-0002 (Facsimile), Email: [email protected] Mailing address is Reserve Forces Policy Board, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 601, Falls Church, VA 22041. Web site: http://rfpb.defense.gov/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the RFPB's Web site.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting notice is being published under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate information related to strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Reserve Components.

    Agenda: The RFPB will hold a meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The portion of the meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. will be closed to the public and will consist of remarks to the RFPB from following invited speakers: The Under Secretary of the Navy will discuss the key challenges and priorities for the Navy in this period of fiscal uncertainty and an increasingly challenging security environment. The Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff will address key national security challenges facing our Nation and priorities for adapting the force. The Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness (USD P&R), being newly assigned, will discuss his provided guidance for OUSD P&R to include the progress on the OUSD P&R reorganization, its effects on the oversight of Reserve Component policies and programs, his views on key Reserve Component challenges, and will conclude with a discussion on the overall DoD force readiness. The Secretary of the U.S. Army, being newly assigned, will discuss his provided guidance to the Army posture, his views on the Report of the National Commission on the Future of the Army, and his plans to adapt the Total Army to meet future challenges. The portion of the meeting from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. will be open to the public and will consist of the following briefings: The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, being newly assigned, will discuss his guidance on his Office of Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and their oversight of Reserve Component policies and programs and his views on key Reserve Component challenges facing DoD. IDA will brief the updates on findings of their ongoing study on the Reserve Components' effectiveness during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Chair of the Supporting & Sustaining Reserve Component Personnel Subcommittee will discuss the Department's and Service's personnel system reforms being considered under the Force of the Future initiatives to include the integrated personnel and pay systems for each service, the Blended Retirement recommendation, the Dual Status Reform, and Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility for title 32 Full Time National Guard Duty, the 20% Military Technician reduction, and the effects of these reforms on the Reserve Components. The Chair of the Ensuring a Ready, Capable, Available and Sustainable Operational Reserve Subcommittee will update the status onto the RFPB's recommendation to SecDef on the Operational Reserve definition, and will also have a discussion with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs about Reserve medical readiness issues to include how the Department views medical readiness, current systems used to track readiness, as well as initiatives within the Department to improve readiness within the Reserve Components. The Chair of the Enhancing DoD's Role in the Homeland Subcommittee will provide updates on the DoD's support of civil authorities and FEMA requirements, and will have a discussion with the Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global on the DoD's policy guidance for Cyber support and services involving the National Guard and State Cyber activities, and the integration of the Reserve Component in DoD's Cyber Mission Force. The RFPB meeting will conclude with a discussion from the Chairman on the status of the RFPB Issues New Administration Transition Book that will be provided for the Department's briefings for the New Administration.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to section 10(a)(1) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Alex Sabol, the Designated Federal Officer, not later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 7, 2016, as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements for a Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees requiring escort should arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 12:15 p.m. on June 8. To complete the security screening, please be prepared to present two forms of identification. One must be a picture identification card. In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the portion of this meeting scheduled to occur from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in coordination with the Department of Defense FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that this portion of the meeting will be closed to the public because it is likely to disclose classified matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, interested persons may submit written statements to the RFPB about its approved agenda or at any time on the RFPB's mission. Written statements should be submitted to the RFPB's Designated Federal Officer at the address, email, or facsimile number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If statements pertain to a specific topic being discussed at the planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five (5) business days prior to the meeting in question. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the RFPB until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written statements and provide copies to all the RFPB members before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Please note that since the RFPB operates under the provisions of the FACA, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the RFPB's Web site.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12050 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary National Security Education Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the National Security Education Board (NSEB) will take place. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    Monday, June 6, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Liaison Capitol Hill Hotel, 415 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alison Patz, telephone (571) 256-0771, [email protected], fax (703) 692-2615.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning requirements established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act, title VII of Public Law 102-183, as amended.

    Agenda 10:30 a.m.—Opening Remarks and Key Updates. 10:45 a.m.—Board's Role in the National Language Service Corps. 11:15 a.m.—Technology Innovation Collaboration. 12:15 p.m.—Working Lunch. 1:15 p.m.—Updates on the Class of 2016 Boren Scholars and Fellows. 1:45 p.m.—NSEP Exclusive Internship Efforts: Insights from Federal Partners. 2:45 p.m.—Break. 3:00 p.m.—Updates on Outreach Initiatives. 3:30 p.m.—NSEP Recruitment Initiatives: Diversity, Veterans Transition, and K-12 Engagement. 4:15 p.m.—Board Discussion. 4:45 p.m.—Adjourn.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis.

    Committee's Point of Contact: Alison Patz, Alternate Designated Federal Official, (571) 256-0771, [email protected]

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense National Security Education Board about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of the planned meeting.

    All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Official for the National Security Education Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Official can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://facadatabase.gov/.

    Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at the address listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least five calendar days prior to the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the National Security Education Board until its next meeting.

    The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submissions with the National Security Education Board and ensure they are provided to all members of the National Security Education Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12078 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2012-HA-0116] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 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 22, 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, 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 SNPMIS Project Officer (Mr. Jack Smith, Solution Delivery Division (SDD) Clinical Systems Division) at 5109 Leesburg Pike, Sky 6, Suite 817, Falls Church, VA 22042-2902 or call 703-681-7156.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and Omb Number: Special Needs Program Management Information System (SNPMIS); OMB Control Number; 0720-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: Special Needs Program Management Information System (SNPMIS) provides access to a comprehensive program of therapy, medical support, and social services for young Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries with special needs. SNPMIS is the Military Health System (MHS) automated information system designed to ensure the DoD meets the unique information requirements associated with implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). SNPMIS captures records referral, evaluation, eligibility, and service plan data for children with special needs who are eligible for MHS services under IDEA. Management reports provide historical analysis to monitor ongoing improvements in quality of care initiatives. It also allows program managers to identify areas where additional services are needed. At the service level, activities of different programs can be compared to determine best practices that can be implemented throughout the Educational and Developmental Intervention Services (EDIS) clinics. The system's remote function allows EDIS staff members to enter a young beneficiary's data while conducting activities from that child's school or home.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 13,913.

    Number of Respondents: 4,174.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 8,348.

    Average Burden per Response: 100 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Information is collected from the individual to whom the record pertains, reports from physicians and other medical department personnel, reports and information from other sources including educational institutions, medical institutions, public and private health, and welfare agencies. Information from the family may be collected during an intake meeting, a meeting to develop a service plan, as a result of provision of services, performance of an evaluation, or other coordination activities. The EDIS clinic or Department of Defense Dependents School (DoDDS) school must obtain permission from the family before information is collected from or provided to an external agency, and prior to conducting evaluations or providing services. Before information is released to an external agency the parents must sign a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) release.

    Personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) that is collected by the system includes: Name, Social Security Number (SSN), Family member prefix (FMP), Birth Date, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Marital Status, Spouse Information, Child Information, Disability Information, Home, Personal Cell, and Work Phone Numbers—Child and Parents, Emergency Contact, Education Information: Child's School Address; Individual educational program plans, Sponsor Name, Sponsor SSN Sponsor and Spouse rank or title, Sponsor's unit, Other child care locations, Provider's name and title that evaluate and provide intervention, Medical Information: Clinics and medical summaries, EDIS process and activities data including referral, evaluation, eligibility, and service plans.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12035 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of partially closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary, into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The executive session of this meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on September 12, 2016, will include discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishment proceedings involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade; the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this reason, the executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    The open session of the meeting will be held on September 12, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The executive session held from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be the closed portion of the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC. The meeting will be handicap accessible.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Commander Eric Madonia, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, 410-293-1503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive session of the meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on September 12, 2016, will consist of discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishments involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to, individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade. The discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the executive session from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be concerned with matters protected under sections 552b(c)(5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12071 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information:

    Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program.

    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.336S.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: May 23, 2016.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: June 22, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 7, 2016.

    Date of Pre-Application Webinars: The Office of Innovation and Improvement intends to hold Webinars designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) Grant Program. Details regarding the dates and times of these Webinars will be provided on the TQP Web site at http://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/teacher-quality/teacher-quality-partnership/applicant-info-and-eligibility/.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 20, 2016.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The TQP Grant Program aims to increase student achievement by improving the quality of new teachers and prospective teachers through enhanced preparation of prospective teachers and professional development activities for new teachers; holding teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education (IHEs) accountable for preparing teachers who meet applicable State certification and licensure requirements; and recruiting individuals with strong content knowledge or a record of professional accomplishment, including minorities and individuals from occupations other than education, into the teaching force.

    Background: The TQP Grant Program supports partnerships among (i) IHEs, (ii) high-need local educational agencies (LEAs), and (iii) high-need schools served by such LEAs or high-need early childhood education (ECE) programs. Under section 202(d) and (e) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), these partnerships must implement either (a) teacher preparation programs at the pre-baccalaureate or “fifth-year” level that include specific reforms in IHEs' existing teacher preparation programs and follow-up support for program completers who become teachers in partner LEAs, or (b) teacher residency programs in which individuals with strong academic or professional backgrounds but without teaching experience are teaching in high-need schools with support from mentor teachers, and concurrently enrolled in a Master's degree program. These two options are further explained in this notice under the Absolute Priorities section of this notice.

    In the FY 2016 TQP competition, we are especially interested in supporting TQP projects that serve or are designed to serve tribal communities and rural areas, given the need for effective educators serving these communities. On November 5, 2009, pursuant to Executive Order 13175, President Obama issued a memorandum requiring each Federal agency to prepare a detailed plan of action the agency would take to consult with tribal officials when developing policies that have implications for tribal communities. Consistent with its responsibilities under the President's memorandum, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) conducted two consultation sessions by teleconference with tribal officials about the TQP program, on January 19 and 21, 2016. During these consultations, we provided participants with an overview of the TQP program and the current TQP grantees, and facilitated a discussion around potential opportunities and challenges that this grant program may provide for tribal communities. In addition, the Department solicited feedback and questions from tribal communities over a two-week period following the calls.

    During this outreach, the Department received numerous comments and questions from participants. Some of these concerns were of a general nature and could affect all applicants, regardless of whether or not they serve Tribal communities. For example, participants were concerned about forming the necessary eligible partnership needed to apply, what entity should lead that effort, and what entity should serve as the lead applicant for the eligible partnership. Participants also expressed concern about whether their local LEAs or BIE-funded schools would meet the definition of a high-need LEA, as that term is defined in section 200 of HEA.

    Some concerns raised by participants reflected the unique challenges facing tribal communities. For example, participants raised issues related to the status of Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools (e.g., whether they are LEAs) in many tribal communities, and the role of two-year colleges in preparing and producing teachers to serve those communities. In addition, TQP staff learned that members of the Tribal community are widely familiar with the Indian Education Professional Development Grant program in the Department's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and sought additional information about the differences between that program and the TQP program.

    Answers to these and other questions will be addressed in the upcoming TQP pre-application Webinars. Additionally, responses to questions and concerns addressed during the consultations also can be found in this notice inviting applications, and in the TQP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document found at http://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/teacher-quality/teacher-quality-partnership/. The Department has also prepared a document that outlines the difference between the TQP and PDP programs. This document can be found as part of the TQP FAQ document.

    We appreciate the dialogue with tribal leaders and the opportunity to gain insight into tribal communities. Due to the detailed statutory requirements for the TQP program in sections 200-204 of the HEA, the Department has limited flexibility to address all of the concerns raised during our consultation process. The consultations nevertheless confirmed that rural communities and tribal communities could greatly benefit from the TQP program, and therefore we have decided to encourage applications from rural and tribal communities through adoption of a competitive preference priority and an invitational priority that focus on the specific teaching needs of these communities.

    Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities, one competitive preference priority, and one invitational priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), Absolute Priority 1 is from section 202(d) of the HEA, and Absolute Priority 2 is from section 202(e) of the HEA. The competitive preference priority is from the Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425) (Supplemental Priorities).

    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. All applications must address either Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2 in order to be considered for funding, but not both. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2. Applications that address both absolute priorities will not be reviewed.

    Each of the two absolute priorities constitutes its own funding category. Assuming that applications in each funding category are of sufficient quality, the Secretary intends to award grants under each absolute priority.

    Applications will be peer reviewed and scored based on the TQP program's selection criteria. Applications will be scored and placed in rank order by absolute priority; thus, applications that address each priority will be scored and ranked separately to create two funding slates. Applications that do not clearly identify the priority being addressed will not be reviewed.

    These priorities are from section 202(d) and (e) of the HEA, and are:

    Absolute Priority 1: Partnership Grants for the Preparation of Teachers.

    Under this priority, an eligible partnership must carry out an effective pre-baccalaureate teacher preparation program or a fifth-year initial licensing program that includes all of the following:

    (a) Program Accountability. Implementing reforms, described in paragraph (b) of this priority, within each teacher preparation program and, as applicable, each preparation program for early childhood education (ECE) programs, of the eligible partnership that is assisted under this priority, to hold each program accountable for—

    (1) Preparing—

    (i) New or prospective teachers to meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), (including teachers in rural school districts, special educators, and teachers of students who are limited English proficient);

    (ii) Such teachers and, as applicable, early childhood educators, to understand empirically-based practice and scientifically valid research related to teaching and learning and the applicability of such practice and research, including through the effective use of technology, instructional techniques, and strategies consistent with the principles of universal design for learning, and through positive behavioral interventions and support strategies to improve student achievement; and

    (iii) As applicable, early childhood educators to be highly competent; and

    (2) Promoting strong teaching skills and, as applicable, techniques for early childhood educators to improve children's cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development.

    Note:

    In addressing paragraph (a) of this priority, applicants may either discuss their implementation of reforms within all teacher preparation programs that the partner institution of higher education administers and that would be assisted under this TQP grant, or selected teacher preparation programs that need particular assistance and that would receive the TQP grant funding.

    (b) Required reforms. The reforms described in paragraph (a) shall include—

    (1) Implementing teacher preparation program curriculum changes that improve, evaluate, and assess how well all prospective and new teachers develop teaching skills;

    (2) Using empirically-based practice and scientifically valid research, where applicable, about teaching and learning so that all prospective teachers and, as applicable, early childhood educators—

    (i) Understand and can implement research-based teaching practices in classroom instruction;

    (ii) Have knowledge of student learning methods;

    (iii) Possess skills to analyze student academic achievement data and other measures of student learning and use such data and measures to improve classroom instruction;

    (iv) Possess teaching skills and an understanding of effective instructional strategies across all applicable content areas that enable general education and special education teachers and early childhood educators to—

    (A) Meet the specific learning needs of all students, including students with disabilities, students who are limited English proficient, students who are gifted and talented, students with low literacy levels, and, as applicable, children in ECE programs; and

    (B) Differentiate instruction for such students;

    (v) Can effectively participate as a member of the individualized education program team, as defined in section 614(d)(1)(B) of the IDEA; and

    (vi) Can successfully employ effective strategies for reading instruction using the essential components of reading instruction;

    (3) Ensuring collaboration with departments, programs, or units of a partner institution outside of the teacher preparation program in all academic content areas to ensure that prospective teachers receive training in both teaching and relevant content areas in order to meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, which may include training in multiple subjects to teach multiple grade levels as may be needed for individuals preparing to teach in rural communities and for individuals preparing to teach students with disabilities;

    (4) Developing and implementing an induction program;

    (5) Developing admissions goals and priorities aligned with the hiring objectives of the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership; and

    (6) Implementing program and curriculum changes, as applicable, to ensure that prospective teachers have the requisite content knowledge, preparation, and degree to teach Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses successfully.

    (c) Clinical experience and interaction. Developing and improving a sustained and high-quality preservice clinical education program to further develop the teaching skills of all prospective teachers and, as applicable, early childhood educators involved in the program. Such programs shall do the following—

    (1) Incorporate year-long opportunities for enrichment, including—

    (i) Clinical learning in classrooms in high-need schools served by the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership, and identified by the eligible partnership; and

    (ii) Closely supervised interaction between prospective teachers and faculty, experienced teachers, principals, other administrators, and school leaders at ECE programs (as applicable), elementary schools, or secondary schools, and providing support for such interaction;

    (2) Integrate pedagogy and classroom practice and promote effective teaching skills in academic content areas;

    (3) Provide high-quality teacher mentoring;

    (4) Be offered over the course of a program of teacher preparation;

    (5) Be tightly aligned with course work (and may be developed as a fifth-year of a teacher preparation program);

    (6) Where feasible, allow prospective teachers to learn to teach in the same LEA in which the teachers will work, learning the instructional initiatives and curriculum of that LEA;

    (7) As applicable, provide training and experience to enhance the teaching skills of prospective teachers to better prepare such teachers to meet the unique needs of teaching in rural or urban communities; and

    (8) Provide support and training for individuals participating in an activity for prospective or new teachers described in this paragraph, or paragraphs (a) and (b), or (d), and for individuals who serve as mentors for such teachers, based on each individual's experience. Such support may include—

    (i) With respect to a prospective teacher or a mentor, release time for such individual's participation;

    (ii) With respect to a faculty member, receiving course workload credit and compensation for time teaching in the eligible partnership's activities; and

    (iii) With respect to a mentor, a stipend, which may include bonus, differential, incentive, or performance pay, based on the mentor's extra skills and responsibilities.

    (d) Induction programs for new teachers. Creating an induction program for new teachers or, in the case of an ECE program, providing mentoring or coaching for new early childhood educators.

    (e) Support and training for participants in ECE programs. In the case of an eligible partnership focusing on early childhood educator preparation, implementing initiatives that increase compensation for early childhood educators who attain associate or baccalaureate degrees in ECE.

    (f) Teacher recruitment. Developing and implementing effective mechanisms (which may include alternative routes to State certification of teachers) to ensure that the eligible partnership is able to recruit qualified individuals to become teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA through the activities of the eligible partnership, which may include an emphasis on recruiting into the teaching profession—

    (1) Individuals from underrepresented populations;

    (2) Individuals to teach in rural communities and teacher shortage areas, including mathematics, science, special education, and the instruction of limited English proficient students; and

    (3) Mid-career professionals from other occupations, former military personnel, and recent college graduates with a record of academic distinction.

    (g) Literacy training. Strengthening the literacy teaching skills of prospective and, as applicable, new elementary school and secondary school teachers—

    (1) To implement literacy programs that incorporate the essential components of reading instruction;

    (2) To use screening, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments to determine students' literacy levels, difficulties, and growth in order to improve classroom instruction and improve student reading and writing skills;

    (3) To provide individualized, intensive, and targeted literacy instruction for students with deficiencies in literacy skills; and

    (4) To integrate literacy skills in the classroom across subject areas.

    Absolute Priority 2: Partnership Grants for the Establishment of Effective Teaching Residency Programs.

    Under this priority, an eligible partnership must carry out an effective teaching residency program that includes all of the following activities:

    (a) Supporting a teaching residency program described in paragraph II (a) for high-need subjects and areas, as determined by the needs of the high-need LEA in the partnership;

    (b) Placing graduates of the teaching residency program in cohorts that facilitate professional collaboration, both among graduates of the teaching residency program and between such graduates and mentor teachers in the receiving school;

    (c) Ensuring that teaching residents who participate in the teaching residency program receive—

    (1) Effective pre-service preparation as described in paragraph II;

    (2) Teacher mentoring;

    (3) Support required through the induction program as the teaching residents enter the classroom as new teachers; and

    (4) The preparation described in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of Absolute Priority 2.

    II. Teaching Residency Programs.

    (a) Establishment and design. A teaching residency program under this priority is a program based upon models of successful teaching residencies that serves as a mechanism to prepare teachers for success in the high-need schools in the eligible partnership, and must be designed to include the following characteristics of successful programs:

    (1) The integration of pedagogy, classroom practice, and teacher mentoring;

    (2) Engagement of teaching residents in rigorous graduate-level course work leading to a master's degree while undertaking a guided teaching apprenticeship;

    (3) Experience and learning opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher—

    (i) Whose teaching shall complement the residency program so that classroom clinical practice is tightly aligned with coursework;

    (ii) Who shall have extra responsibilities as a teacher leader of the teaching residency program, as a mentor for residents, and as a teacher coach during the induction program for new teachers; and for establishing, within the program, a learning community in which all individuals are expected to continually improve their capacity to advance student learning; and

    (iii) Who may be relieved from teaching duties as a result of such additional responsibilities;

    (4) The establishment of clear criteria for the selection of mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness and the appropriate subject area knowledge. Evaluation of teacher effectiveness must be based on, but not limited to, observations of the following—

    (i) Planning and preparation, including demonstrated knowledge of content, pedagogy, and assessment, including the use of formative and diagnostic assessments to improve student learning;

    (ii) Appropriate instruction that engages students with different learning styles;

    (iii) Collaboration with colleagues to improve instruction;

    (iv) Analysis of gains in student learning, based on multiple measures that are valid and reliable and that, when feasible, may include valid, reliable, and objective measures of the influence of teachers on the rate of student academic progress; and

    (v) In the case of mentor candidates who will be mentoring new or prospective literacy and mathematics coaches or instructors, appropriate skills in the essential components of reading instruction, teacher training in literacy instructional strategies across core subject areas, and teacher training in mathematics instructional strategies, as appropriate;

    (5) Grouping of teaching residents in cohorts to facilitate professional collaboration among such residents;

    (6) The development of admissions goals and priorities—

    (i) That are aligned with the hiring objectives of the LEA partnering with the program, as well as the instructional initiatives and curriculum of such agency, in exchange for a commitment by such agency to hire qualified graduates from the teaching residency program; and

    (ii) Which may include consideration of applicants that reflect the communities in which they will teach as well as consideration of individuals from underrepresented populations in the teaching profession; and

    (7) Support for residents, once the teaching residents are hired as teachers of record, through an induction program, professional development, and networking opportunities to support the residents through not less than the residents' first two years of teaching.

    (b) Selection of individuals as teacher residents.

    (1) Eligible Individual. In order to be eligible to be a teacher resident in a teaching residency program under this priority, an individual shall—

    (i) Be a recent graduate of a four-year IHE or a mid-career professional from outside the field of education possessing strong content knowledge or a record of professional accomplishment; and

    (ii) Submit an application to the teaching residency program.

    (2) Selection Criteria. An eligible partnership carrying out a teaching residency program under this priority shall establish criteria for the selection of eligible individuals to participate in the teaching residency program based on the following characteristics—

    (i) Strong content knowledge or record of accomplishment in the field or subject area to be taught;

    (ii) Strong verbal and written communication skills, which may be demonstrated by performance on appropriate tests; and

    (iii) Other attributes linked to effective teaching, which may be determined by interviews or performance assessments, as specified by the eligible partnership.

    (c) Stipends or salaries; applications; agreements; repayments.

    (1) Stipends or salaries. A teaching residency program under this priority shall provide a one-year living stipend or salary to teaching residents during the teaching residency program;

    (2) Applications for stipends or salaries. Each teacher residency candidate desiring a stipend or salary during the period of residency shall submit an application to the eligible partnership at such time, and containing such information and assurances, as the eligible partnership may require;

    (3) Agreements to serve. Each application submitted under paragraph (c)(2) of this priority shall contain or be accompanied by an agreement that the applicant will—

    (i) Serve as a full-time teacher for a total of not less than three academic years immediately after successfully completing the teaching residency program;

    (ii) Fulfill the requirement under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this priority by teaching in a high-need school served by the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership and teach a subject or area that is designated as high-need by the partnership;

    (iii) Provide to the eligible partnership a certificate, from the chief administrative officer of the LEA in which the resident is employed, of the employment required under paragraph (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this priority at the beginning of, and upon completion of, each year or partial year of service;

    (iv) Meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, when the applicant begins to fulfill the service obligation under this clause; and

    (v) Comply with the requirements set by the eligible partnership under paragraph (e) of this priority if the applicant is unable or unwilling to complete the service obligation required by the paragraph.

    (d) Repayments.

    (1) In general. A grantee carrying out a teaching residency program under this priority shall require a recipient of a stipend or salary under paragraph (c)(1) of this priority who does not complete, or who notifies the partnership that the recipient intends not to complete, the service obligation required by paragraph (c)(3) of this priority to repay such stipend or salary to the eligible partnership, together with interest, at a rate specified by the partnership in the agreement, and in accordance with such other terms and conditions specified by the eligible partnership, as necessary;

    (2) Other terms and conditions. Any other terms and conditions specified by the eligible partnership may include reasonable provisions for pro rata repayment of the stipend or salary described in paragraph (c)(1) of this priority or for deferral of a teaching resident's service obligation required by paragraph (c)(3) of this priority, on grounds of health, incapacitation, inability to secure employment in a school served by the eligible partnership, being called to active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States, or other extraordinary circumstances;

    (3) Use of repayments. An eligible partnership shall use any repayment received under paragraph (d) to carry out additional activities that are consistent with the purposes of this priority.

    Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. The priority comes from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Secretary's Supplemental Priorities) published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 at 79 FR 73426, 73451.

    If an applicant chooses to address the competitive preference priority, the project narrative section of its application must identify its response to this competitive preference priority. The Department will not review or award points under this competitive preference priority if the applicant fails to clearly identify its response in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to an additional fifteen points to an application, depending on how well the application addresses the competitive preference priority. An applicant is not required to address both paragraphs (a) and (b) of the competitive preference priority in order to receive the full 15 points.

    Only applicants that are highly rated on the selection criteria for Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2 will be eligible to receive competitive preference points.

    The priority is:

    Competitive Preference Priority: Supporting High-Need Students (up to 15 points).

    Projects that are designed to improve academic outcomes for one or both of the following groups of students:

    (a) Students who are members of federally-recognized Indian Tribes.

    (b) Students served by rural LEAs (as defined in this notice).

    Within this competitive preference priority, we are particularly interested in applications that address the following invitational priority.

    Invitational Priority: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

    This priority is:

    Enhancing Cultural Competencies to Support High-Need Students.

    (a) Under this priority, the Department invites applicants to propose a TQP project that will provide project participants with specific coursework, experiences, and professional development to enable them to gain cultural competencies and content knowledge, and related pedagogical skills, to support the learning needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students, rural students, or both.

    (b) In responding to this invitational priority, applicants are encouraged to include the following elements in their proposed projects:

    (1) An identification of the proposed population(s) to be served in the partner high-need LEA(s), including data that document a high number or high concentration of American Indian and Alaska Native and/or rural students to be served, as well as data regarding how the project will address the unique challenges of serving the identified population(s).

    (2) A description of how the project will promote collaboration across partner institutions of higher education to ensure that TQP project participants who intend to teach American Indian and Alaska Native and/or rural students have access to coursework, experiences, and professional development that will build both cultural competency and content knowledge to teach students in the identified population(s) effectively.

    (3) A description of how the grantee will align its proposed TQP project activities with the appropriate State licensure standards and, how it will implement strategies that translate those standards into classroom practice with regard to the identified population(s).

    Definitions: The definitions for “Early childhood educator,” “High-need early childhood education (ECE) program,” “High-need local educational agency (LEA)”, “High-need school,” and “Partner institution” are from section 200 of the HEA. The definitions for “Logic model,” “Relevant outcome,” and “Strong theory” are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definitions for “high minority school,” “high-need students,” “regular high school diploma,” and “rural local education agency” are from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities.

    Early childhood educator means an individual with primary responsibility for the education of children in an early childhood education program.

    High-minority school means a school as that term is defined by a local educational agency (LEA), which must define the term in a manner consistent with its State's Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The applicant must provide the definition(s) of High-minority Schools used in its application.

    High-need early childhood education (ECE) program means an ECE program serving children from low-income families that is located within the geographic area served by a high-need LEA.

    High-need local educational agency (LEA) means an LEA—

    (i)(A) For which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are children from low-income families;

    (B) That serves not fewer than 10,000 children from low-income families;

    (C) That meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program under section 5211(b) of the ESEA; or

    (D) That meets eligibility requirements for funding under the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program under section 6211(b) of the ESEA; and—

    (ii)(A) For which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subject areas or grade levels in which the teachers were trained to teach; or

    (B) For which there is a high teacher turnover rate or a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensure.

    Note:

    Information on how an applicant may demonstrate that a partner LEA meets this definition is included in the application package.

    High-need school means a school that, based on the most recent data available, meets one or both of the following:

    (i) The school is in the highest quartile of schools in a ranking of all schools served by an LEA, ranked in descending order by percentage of students from low-income families enrolled in such schools, as determined by the LEA based on one of the following measures of poverty:

    (A) The percentage of students aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary.

    (B) The percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

    (C) The percentage of students in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under Part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act.

    (D) The percentage of students eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program.

    (E) A composite of two or more of the measures described in paragraphs (A) through (D).

    (ii) In the case of—

    (A) An elementary school, the school serves students not less than 60 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; or

    (B) Any other school that is not an elementary school, the other school serves students not less than 45 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

    (iii) The Secretary may, upon approval of an application submitted by an eligible partnership seeking a grant under this title, designate a school that does not qualify as a high-need school under this definition, as a high-need school for the purpose of this title. The Secretary shall base the approval of an application for designation of a school under this clause on a consideration of the information required under section 200 (II)(B)(ii) of the HEA, and may also take into account other information submitted by the eligible partnership.

    Note:

    Information on how an applicant may demonstrate that a partner LEA meets this definition is included in the application package.

    High-need students means students who are at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners.

    Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    Partner institution means an IHE, which may include a two-year IHE offering a dual program with a partner four-year IHE, participating in an eligible partnership that has a teacher preparation program—

    (i) Whose graduates exhibit strong performance on State determined qualifying assessments for new teachers through—

    (A) Demonstrating that 80 percent or more of the graduates of the program who intend to enter the field of teaching have passed all of the applicable State qualification assessments for new teachers, which shall include an assessment of each prospective teacher's subject matter knowledge in the content area in which the teacher intends to teach; or

    (B) Being ranked among the highest-performing teacher preparation programs in the State as determined by the State—

    (1) Using criteria consistent with the requirements for the State Report Card under section 205(b) of the HEA before the first publication of the report card; and

    (2) Using the State report card on teacher preparation required under section 205(b), after the first publication of such report card and for every year thereafter; and

    (ii) That requires—

    (A) Each student in the program to meet high academic standards or demonstrate a record of success, as determined by the institution (including prior to entering and being accepted into a program), and participate in intensive clinical experience;

    (B) Each student in the program preparing to become a teacher who meets the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA; and

    (C) Each student in the program preparing to become an early childhood educator to meet degree requirements, as established by the State, and become highly competent.

    Note:

    For purposes of paragraph (ii)(C) of this definition, the term “highly competent,” under section 200(12) of the HEA, when used with respect to an early childhood educator, means an educator—

    (a) With specialized education and training in development and education of young children from birth until entry into kindergarten;

    (b) With—

    (i) A baccalaureate degree in an academic major in the arts and sciences; or

    (ii) An associate's degree in a related educational area; and

    (c) Who has demonstrated a high level of knowledge and use of content and pedagogy in the relevant areas associated with quality ECE.

    Regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a General Education Development (GED) credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award.

    Relevant outcome means the student outcome (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve, as consistent with the specific goals of a program.

    Rural local education agency means a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department's Web site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    Note:

    Definitions for the following terms that also apply to this program are in section 200 of the HEA: “arts and sciences,” “induction program,” “limited English proficient,” “professional development,” “scientifically valid research,” and “teacher mentoring.”

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021-1022c.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities (79 FR 73425).

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally-recognized Indian tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $5,000,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000-$1,500,000.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,000,000 for the first year of the project. Funding for the second, third, fourth, and fifth years is subject to the availability of funds and the approval of continuation awards (see 34 CFR 75.253).

    Maximum Award: We will not award more than $1,500,000 to any applicant for a budget period of 12 months.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 3-5.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: An eligible applicant must be an “eligible partnership” as defined in section 200(6) of the HEA. The term “eligible partnership” means an entity that—

    (1) Must include:

    (i) A high-need LEA;

    (ii)(A) A high-need school or consortium of high-need schools served by the high-need LEA, or

    (B) As applicable, a high-need ECE program;

    (iii) A partner institution;

    (iv) A school, department, or program of education within such partner institution, which may include an existing teacher professional development program with proven outcomes within a four-year IHE that provides intensive and sustained collaboration between faculty and LEAs consistent with the requirements of title II of the HEA;

    (v) A school or department of arts and sciences within such partner institution; and

    (2) May include any of the following—

    (i) The Governor of the State.

    (ii) The State educational agency.

    (iii) The State board of education.

    (iv) The State agency for higher education.

    (v) A business.

    (vi) A public or private nonprofit educational organization.

    (vii) An educational service agency.

    (viii) A teacher organization.

    (ix) A high-performing LEA, or a consortium of such LEAs, that can serve as a resource to the partnership.

    (x) A charter school (as defined in section 5210 of the ESEA).

    (xi) A school or department within the partner institution that focuses on psychology and human development.

    (xii) A school or department within the partner institution with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development.

    (xiii) An entity operating a program that provides alternative routes to State certification of teachers. Any of the mandatory or optional entities in the partnership may be the fiscal agent of the grant.

    Note:

    So that the Department can confirm the eligibility of the LEA(s) that an applicant proposes to serve, applicants must include information in their applications that demonstrates that each LEA to be served by the project is a “high-need LEA” (as defined in this notice and in section 200(10) of the HEA).

    Applicants should review the application package for additional information on determining whether an LEA meets the definition of “high-need LEA.”

    Additionally, applicants must also partner with a school or department of arts and sciences within the partner institution. More information on eligible partnerships can be found in the TQP FAQ document found on the program Web site at http://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/teacher-quality/teacher-quality-partnership/.

    2.a. Cost Sharing or Matching:

    Under section 203(c) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1022b), each grant recipient must provide, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 100 percent of the amount of the grant, which may be provided in cash or in-kind, to carry out the activities supported by the grant. Grantees must budget their matching contributions on an annual basis relative to each annual award of TQP Grant Program funds.

    The HEA also authorizes the Secretary to waive this matching requirement for any fiscal year for an eligible partnership if the Secretary determines that applying the matching requirement to the eligible partnership would result in serious hardship or an inability to carry out the authorized activities described in section 202 of the HEA. Applicants that wish to apply for a waiver for year one or for future years of the project may include a request in their application that describes why the 100 percent matching requirement would cause serious hardship or an inability to carry out project activities. Further information about applying for waivers can be found in the application package. However, given the importance of matching funds to the long-term success of the project, the Secretary expects eligible entities to identify appropriate matching funds.

    b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. In accordance with section 202(k) of the HEA, funds made available under this program must be used to supplement, and not supplant, other Federal, State, and local funds that would otherwise be expended to carry out activities under this program. For any high-need LEA that is funded by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Education, the Secretary considers funds the LEA received from the Department of Interior's annual appropriation to be non-Federal funds.

    3. Other:

    General Application Requirements:

    All applicants must meet the following general application requirements in order to be considered for funding. Except as specifically noted in this section, the general application requirements are from section 202 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1022a).

    Each eligible partnership desiring a grant under this program must submit an application that contains—

    (a) A needs assessment of the partners in the eligible partnership with respect to the preparation, ongoing training, professional development, and retention of general education and special education teachers, principals, and, as applicable, early childhood educators;

    (b) A description of the extent to which the program to be carried out with grant funds, as described in Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2, in this notice, and, if the applicant chooses to do so, a Partnership Grant for the Development of Leadership Program, as described in section 202(f) of the HEA, will prepare prospective and new teachers with strong teaching skills;

    (c) A description of how such a program will prepare prospective and new teachers to understand and use research and data to modify and improve classroom instruction;

    (d) A description of—

    (1) How the eligible partnership will coordinate strategies and activities assisted under the grant with other teacher preparation or professional development programs, and

    (2) How the activities of the partnership will be consistent with State, local, and other education reform activities that promote teacher quality and student academic achievement;

    (e) An assessment that describes the resources available to the eligible partnership, including—

    (1) The integration of funds from other related sources;

    (2) The intended use of the grant funds; and

    (3) The commitment of the resources of the partnership to the activities assisted under this program, including financial support, faculty participation, and time commitments, and to the continuation of the activities when the grant ends.

    (f) A description of—

    (1) How the eligible partnership will meet the purposes of the TQP Grant Program as specified in section 201 of the HEA;

    (2) How the partnership will carry out the activities required under Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2, as described in this notice, based on the needs identified in paragraph (a), with the goal of improving student academic achievement;

    (4) The partnership's evaluation plan under section 204(a) of the HEA;

    (5) How the partnership will align the teacher preparation program with the—

    (i) State early learning standards for ECE programs, as appropriate, and with the relevant domains of early childhood development; and

    (ii) Student academic achievement standards and academic content standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA as amended by ESSA, established by the State in which the partnership is located;

    (6) How the partnership will prepare general education teachers to teach students with disabilities, including training related to participation as a member of individualized education program teams, as defined in section 614(d)(1)(B) of the IDEA;

    (7) How the partnership will prepare general education and special education teachers to teach students who are limited English proficient;

    (8) How faculty at the partner institution will work during the term of the grant, with teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in the classrooms of high-need schools served by the high-need LEA in the partnership to—

    (i) Provide high-quality professional development activities to strengthen the content knowledge and teaching skills of elementary school and secondary school teachers; and

    (ii) Train other classroom teachers to implement literacy programs that incorporate the essential components of reading instruction;

    (9) How the partnership will design, implement, or enhance a year-long and rigorous teaching preservice clinical program component;

    (10) How the partnership will support in-service professional development strategies and activities; and

    (11) How the partnership will collect, analyze, and use data on the retention of all teachers and early childhood educators in schools and ECE programs located in the geographic area served by the partnership to evaluate the effectiveness of the partnership's teacher and educator support system.

    (g) With respect to the induction program required as part of the activities carried out under Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2—

    (1) A demonstration that the schools and departments within the IHE that are part of the induction program will effectively prepare teachers, including providing content expertise and expertise in teaching, as appropriate;

    (2) A demonstration of the eligible partnership's capability and commitment to, and the accessibility to and involvement of faculty in, the use of empirically-based practice and scientifically valid research on teaching and learning;

    (3) A description of how the teacher preparation program will design and implement an induction program to support, through not less than the first two years of teaching, all new teachers who are prepared by the teacher preparation program in the partnership and who teach in the high-need LEA in the partnership, and, to the extent practicable, all new teachers who teach in such high-need LEA, in the further development of the new teachers' teaching skills, including the use of mentors who are trained and compensated by such program for the mentors' work with new teachers; and

    (4) A description of how faculty involved in the induction program will be able to substantially participate in an ECE program or elementary school or secondary school classroom setting, as applicable, including release time and receiving workload credit for such participation.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: Mia Howerton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4w205, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 205-0147 or by email: [email protected]

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

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program.

    Notice of Intent to Apply: June 22, 2016.

    The Department will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if it has a better understanding of the number of entities that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify the Department of its intent to submit an application for funding by completing the FY 16 Intent to Apply survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/tqpfy16.

    Applicants that fail to complete the FY 16 Intent to Apply survey may still apply for funding.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit the application narrative (Part III) to no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. However, you may single space all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative (Part III).

    b. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the TQP Grant Program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C 552, as amended).

    Because we plan to post the project narrative section of funded TQP Grant Program applications on our Web site, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: May 23, 2016.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: June 22, 2016.

    Date of Pre-Application Webinars: The TQP program intends to hold Webinars designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants. Details regarding the dates and times of these Webinars will be provided on the TQP Web site at http://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/teacher-quality/teacher-quality-partnership/applicant-info-and-eligibility/.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 7, 2016.

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 20, 2016.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We specify unallowable costs in 2 CFR 200, subpart E. We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform.

    A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements:

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications. Applications for grants under the TQP Grant Program, CFDA number 84.336S, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the TQP Grant Program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.336, not 84.336S).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the project narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because--

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Mia Howerton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4w205, Washington, DC 20202-5960. FAX: (202) 205-5630.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.336S) LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.336S), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses. Each criterion also includes the sub-factors that the reviewers will consider in determining how well an application meets the criterion. The criteria are as follows:

    (a) Significance (up to 10 points).

    In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors—

    (i) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.

    (ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement.

    (b) Quality of the Project Design (up to 35 points).

    In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project consists of a comprehensive plan that includes a description of—

    (i) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice).

    (ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.

    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for this competition.

    Note: Applicants are encouraged to develop logic models. These logic models should include the applicant's plan to implement and evaluate the proposed project. Applicants should connect available evidence of past history of successful outcomes to their logic models. Applicants may use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (http://relpacific.mcrel.org/resources/elm-app) to help design their logic models.

    (c) Quality of the Management Plan (up to 30 points).

    In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors—

    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

    (ii) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.

    (d) Quality of the Project Evaluation (up to 25 points).

    In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers—

    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.

    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

    4. Performance Measures: The goal of the TQP Grant Program is to increase student achievement in K-12 schools by developing teachers who meet applicable State certification and licensure requirements. Under GPRA, the following measures will be used by the Department in assessing the performance of this program:

    (a) Performance Measure 1: Certification/Licensure. The percentage of program graduates who have attained initial State certification/licensure by passing all necessary licensure/certification assessments within one year of program completion.

    (b) Performance Measure 2: 1-Year Persistence. The percentage of program participants who were enrolled in the postsecondary program in the previous grant reporting period, did not graduate, and persisted in the postsecondary program in the current grant reporting period.

    (c) Performance Measure 3: 1-Year Employment Retention. The percentage of program completers who were employed for the first time as teachers of record in the preceding year by the partner high-need LEA or ECE program and were retained for the current school year.

    (d) Performance Measure 4: 3-Year Employment Retention. The percentage of program completers who were employed by the partner high-need LEA or ECE program for three consecutive years after initial employment.

    (e) Performance Measure 5: Student Learning. The percentage of grantees that report improved aggregate learning outcomes of students taught by new teachers. These data can be calculated using student growth, a teacher evaluation measure, or both.

    Applicants must also address the evaluation requirements in section 204(a) of the HEA. This section asks applicants to develop objectives and measures for increasing:

    (1) Achievement for all prospective and new teachers, as measured by the eligible partnership;

    (2) Teacher retention in the first three years of a teacher's career;

    (3) Improvement in the pass rates and scaled scores for initial State certification or licensure of teachers; and

    (4) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA participating in the eligible partnership;

    (5) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA who are members of underrepresented groups;

    (6) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA who teach high-need academic subject areas (such as reading, mathematics, science, and foreign language, including less commonly taught languages and critical foreign languages);

    (7) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA who teach in high-need areas (including special education, language instruction educational programs for limited English proficient students, and early childhood education);

    (8) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA who teach in high-need schools, disaggregated by the elementary school and secondary school levels;

    (9) As applicable, the percentage of early childhood education program classes in the geographic area served by the eligible partnership taught by early childhood educators who are highly competent; and

    (10) As applicable, the percentage of teachers trained—

    (i) To integrate technology effectively into curricula and instruction, including technology consistent with the principles of universal design for learning; and

    (ii) To use technology effectively to collect, manage, and analyze data to improve teaching and learning for the purpose of improving student academic achievement.

    Note:

    If funded, grantees will be asked to collect and report data on these measures in their project's annual performance reports (34 CFR 75.590). Applicants are also advised to consider these measures in conceptualizing the design, implementation, and evaluation of their proposed projects because of their importance in the application review process. Collection of data on these measures should be a part of the evaluation plan, along with measures of progress on goals and objectives that are specific to your project.

    All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report documenting their success in addressing these performance measures.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mia Howerton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W205, Washington, DC 20202-5960. Telephone: (202) 205-0147 or by email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice.

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

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

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Nadya Chinoy Dabby, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12101 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    Election Assistance Commission Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting agenda.

    DATE and TIME:

    Wednesday, May 25, 2016, (9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.—EDT)

    PLACE:

    1335 East West Highway (First Floor Conference Room), Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    AGENDA:

    Commissioners will meet to release a 2016 Election Worker Guidebook, State Compendium of Election Worker Requirements, and Election Worker Webisode. Commissioners will hear from state and local election officials, and research experts to: (1) Discuss ways to recruit and train election workers; and (2) discuss the allocation of resources at the polls on Election Day.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (301) 563-3961.

    Signed:

    Bryan Whitener, Director of Communications and Clearinghouse, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12177 Filed 5-19-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology AGENCY:

    Office of Science, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open teleconference.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a conference call of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Council. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    June 6, 2016, 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To receive the call-in information, attendees should register for the conference call on the PCAST Web site, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast no later than 12:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, June 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information regarding the meeting agenda, time, location, and how to register for the meeting is available on the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. Questions about the meeting should be directed to Ms. Jennifer Michael at [email protected], (202) 456-4444.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House, cabinet departments, and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. PCAST is consulted about and provides analyses and recommendations concerning a wide range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation may bear on the policy choices before the President. PCAST is co-chaired by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, The White House; and Dr. Eric S. Lander, President, Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.

    Type of Meeting: Open.

    Proposed Schedule and Agenda: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is scheduled to hold a public conference call on June 6, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Open Portion of Meeting: During this open meeting, PCAST is scheduled to discuss its study on Forensic Science in Federal Criminal Courts: Ensuring Reliable Principles and Methods. Additional information and the agenda, including any changes that arise, will be posted at the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.

    Public Comments: It is the policy of the PCAST to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The PCAST expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

    The public comment period for this meeting will take place on June 6, 2016 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. This public comment period is designed only for substantive commentary on PCAST's work, not for business marketing purposes.

    Oral Comments: To be considered for the public speaker list at the meeting, interested parties should register to speak at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast, no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 2, 2016. Phone or email reservations will not be accepted. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of up to 10 minutes. If more speakers register than there is space available on the agenda, PCAST will randomly select speakers from among those who applied. Those not selected to present oral comments may always file written comments with the committee.

    Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted continuously, written comments should be submitted to PCAST no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 2, 2016 so that the comments may be made available to the PCAST members prior to this meeting for their consideration. Information regarding how to submit comments and documents to PCAST is available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast in the section entitled “Connect with PCAST.”

    Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.

    Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access this public meeting should contact Ms. Jennifer Michael at least ten business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11959 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR16-18-000] American Airlines, Inc. v. Plantation Pipe Line Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 13, 2016, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206, section 343.2 of the Commission's Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.2, American Airlines, Inc. (American or Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Plantation Pipe Line Company (Plantation or Respondent), alleging that Plantation unlawfully proposed to suspend jet fuel transportation service in violation of sections 1, 3, 6, 13, and 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. app. 1, 3, 6, 13, and 15 (1988) and that its transmix policy is unduly discriminatory and unduly preferential, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    American certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Plantation as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 13, 2016.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12064 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14773-000] Swanton Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On April 1, 2016, Swanton Hydro, LLC (Swanton Hydro) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Lower Swanton Dam Hydroelectric Project (project) to be located on the Missisquoi River in the Village of Swanton, Franklin County, Vermont. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing 335-foot-long, 12-foot-high concrete gravity dam (Swanton dam) with a 331-foot-long spillway with 2-foot-high wooden flashboards; (2) an existing 170-acre impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 112 feet above mean sea level; (3) a new 35-foot-long, 55-foot-wide intake structure with trashracks; (4) a new 100-foot-long, 55-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 850 kilowatts; (5) a new 45-foot-long, 45-foot-wide, 18-foot-deep tailrace and 50-foot-long training wall; (6) a new 210-foot-long, 12.47-kilovolt transmission line and transformer; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project would produce an estimated average annual generation of 3,580 megawatt-hours. There are no federal lands associated with the project.

    Applicant Contact: William F. Scully, P.O. Box 338, North Bennington, Vermont 05257; phone: (802) 379-2469.

    FERC Contact: Tom Dean (202) 502-6041.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14773-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14773) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12065 Filed 5-20-16; 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: ER16-533-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-05-17 CTS Compliance Filing to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-534-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-05-17_CTS Compliance Filing to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1410-001.

    Applicants: Torofino Trading LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to the Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 5/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1440-001.

    Applicants: Roswell Solar, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Roswell Solar, LLC's Amendment to Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 6/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1719-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SDGE Annual Filing of Revised Costs and Accruals for PBOPs to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1720-000.

    Applicants: Invenergy Energy Management LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1720-001.

    Applicants: Invenergy Energy Management LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to May 17, 2016 Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1721-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Transmission Construction and Interconnection Agreement with Tri-State to be effective 4/28/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1722-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company Request for Updated Depreciation Rates to be effective 5/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1723-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AECC East Fayetteville Delivery Point Agreement to be effective 4/21/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1724-000.

    Applicants: Paulding Wind Farm III LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application to be effective 7/17/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    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 17, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12046 Filed 5-20-16; 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 hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff will attend the following meeting related to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)—PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Joint and Common Market Initiative (Docket No. AD14-3-000): MISO/PJM Joint Stakeholder Meeting—May 24, 2016.

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Stakeholder Center, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.

    Further information may be found at www.pjm.com.

    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket Nos. ER16-533, ER16-534, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket Nos. ER16-535, ER16-536, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER10-1791, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket Nos. ER13-1924, ER13-1926, ER13-1936, ER13-1944, ER13-1947, ER15-2200, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-1736, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No ER16-1485, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No ER16-1486, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. EL15-99, EL16-12, Internal MISO Generation v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    For more information, contact Bahaa Seireg, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8739 or [email protected]

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12063 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP16-3-000 and CP16-3-001] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Access South, Adair Southwest, and Lebanon Extension Projects 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 Access South, Adair Southwest, and Lebanon Extension Projects (Projects) in Docket Nos. CP16-3-000 and CP16-3-001. The Projects involve construction, abandonment, and operation of facilities by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) that would enable an additional 622,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas transportation on Texas Eastern's existing mainline facilities to serve markets in the Midwest and Southeast. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of a second scoping period that the Commission will use to gather input from the public on the Projects. The Commission is opening a second scoping period for affected landowners who were not included in the mailing list for the original Notice of Intent (NOI) issued for the Projects on August 1, 2015 during the pre-filing review process under Docket Number PF15-17-000. This includes landowners near twelve existing compressor stations where Texas Eastern proposes to replace pipeline or modify facilities to allow for reverse flow capabilities, including one compressor station where it proposes to install additional compression facilities. Texas Eastern's proposal is more fully described on page 3 of this notice.

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Projects. 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 16, 2016.

    Landowners receiving this notice are primarily abutters to Texas Eastern's existing compressor stations where modifications are proposed or are within 0.5 mile of the Tompkinsville Compressor Station in Monroe County, Kentucky, where additional compression is proposed. One landowner receiving this notice is directly affected by the proposed replacement pipeline at Kosciusko Compressor Station in Attala County, Mississippi, and Texas Eastern has stated it has contacted this landowner. The company will seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement regarding acquisition of any easements needed to construct, operate, and maintain the replacement pipeline. However, if the Commission approves the Projects, 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 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 project docket numbers (CP16-3-000 and CP16-3-001) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    The proposed pipeline facilities for the Projects include 15.8 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop 1 in three segments, most of which would be either within or adjacent to Texas Eastern's existing rights-of-way in Athens, Meigs, Noble, and Monroe Counties, Ohio; and 0.5 mile of 16-inch-diameter replacement pipeline within an existing right-of-way in Attala County, Mississippi. In addition two pig 2 launcher/receivers would be relocated and two new pig launcher/receivers would be installed in Monroe County, Ohio. Proposed modifications to aboveground facilities would include modifications necessary to allow for bi-directional flow and meter reversals at twelve existing compressor stations which are proposed to be located primarily within Texas Eastern's current footprint. In addition, a new 16,875 horsepower electric compressor would be added at the Tompkinsville Compressor Station in Monroe County, Kentucky.

    1 A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to an existing pipeline to increase capacity.

    2 A “pig” is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    The proposed modifications at twelve existing compressor station sites would include piping modifications to accommodate bi-directional flow capability along Texas Eastern's existing mainline. These modifications are proposed at the following compressor stations:

    • Holbrook Compressor Station in Greene County, Pennsylvania;

    • Lebanon Compressor Station in Warren County, Ohio;

    • Somerset Compressor Station in Perry County, Ohio;

    • Berne Compressor Station in Monroe County, Ohio;

    • Athens Compressor Station in Athens County, Ohio;

    • Owingsville Compressor Station in Bath County, Kentucky;

    • Danville Compressor Station in Lincoln County, Kentucky;

    • Tompkinsville Compressor Station in Monroe County, Kentucky;

    • Gladeville Compressor Station in Wilson County, Tennessee;

    • Barton Compressor Station in Colbert County, Alabama;

    • Egypt Compressor Station in Monroe County, Mississippi; and

    • Kosciusko Compressor Station in Attala County, Mississippi.

    The general location of the Projects facilities is shown in appendix 1.3

    3 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all 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.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 283.7 acres of land for the pipeline loops and replacement, including extra workspace and access roads, and 341.0 acres of previously disturbed land at compressor station facilities. Following construction, Texas Eastern would maintain an additional 96.8 acres for permanent operation of the Projects' facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. The proposed loops would be located mostly adjacent to Texas Eastern's existing pipeline rights-of-way and construction at the compressor stations would occur at existing facilities where no permanent expansion of the facilities would occur.

    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 4 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 address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    4 “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 proposed Projects under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • Land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed Projects or portions of the Projects, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA 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.

    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 have initiated consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Projects' potential effects on historic properties.5 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the Projects develop. On 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 the Projects 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 for the Projects includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; 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 Projects. The mailing list for this supplemental NOI just includes landowners who were not previously notified by the original NOI and are abutters to Texas Eastern's compressor stations or within 0.5 mile of the Tompkinsville Compressor Station in Monroe County, Kentucky where additional compression is proposed. 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 proposed Projects.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, 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 (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, 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. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Because you were not notified by the original NOI, you may still intervene.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-3). 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.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12062 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Nexus Gas Transmission and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease Projects Docket Nos. NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC CP16-22-000 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP CP16-23-000

    On November 20, 2015, NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC (NEXUS) and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) filed applications in Docket Nos. CP16-22-000 and CP16-23-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed projects are known as the NEXUS Gas Transmission (NGT) Project and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease (TEAL) Project (jointly referred to as “Projects”) and would provide transportation of 1.5 million dekatherms per day of Appalachian Basin shale gas to consuming markets in Northern Ohio, Southeastern Michigan, and Midwestern markets, as well as the Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada.

    On December 7, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued its Notice of Application for the Projects. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Projects. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for completion of the final EIS for the Projects, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in July 2016.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS—November 30, 2016 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—February 28, 2017

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Projects' progress.

    Project Description

    The NGT Project would include about 255 miles of new 36-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, including about 208 miles in Columbiana, Stark, Summit, Wayne, Medina, Lorain, Huron, Erie, Sandusky, Wood, Lucas, Henry, and Fulton Counties, Ohio and about 47 miles in Lenawee, Monroe, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties, Michigan. The NGT Project also would include about one mile of new 36-inch-diameter interconnecting pipeline in Columbiana County, Ohio. In addition, NEXUS proposes to construct and operate four new compressor stations and other aboveground facilities.

    The TEAL Project would include about 4.4 miles of new 36-inch-diameter loop pipeline in Monroe County, Ohio; and about 0.3 mile of new 30-inch-diameter interconnecting pipeline between in Columbiana County, Ohio. The TEAL Project also would include construction of one new compressor station, modification of one existing compressor station, and construction and modification of other aboveground facilities.

    Background

    On January 9, 2015 and January 26, 2015, the Commission staff granted NEXUS and Texas Eastern's requests to use the FERC's Pre-filing environmental review process and assigned the NGT Project and TEAL Project Docket Nos. PF15-10-000 and PF15-11-000, respectively. On April 8, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Nexus Gas Transmission Project and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI).

    The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the Projects and was sent to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes and regional organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. Major issues raised during scoping include underground mines, karst geology, topsoil, drain tiles, drinking water, waterbodies, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, Oak Openings ecosystem, residential development, socioeconomic resources, cultural resources, public safety, air quality, as well as potential cumulative resource impacts and recommended project alternatives.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (http://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., CP16-22 or CP16-23), and follow the instructions.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12047 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-100-000.

    Applicants: Chisholm View Wind Project II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Chisholm View Wind Project II, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/16/16.

    Accession Number: 20160516-5323.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-101-000.

    Applicants: Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/16/16.

    Accession Number: 20160516-5393.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1906-007; ER11-2192-009; ER10-1971-027; ER11-4462-018.

    Applicants: FPL Energy New Mexico Wind, LLC, Red Mesa Wind, LLC, NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, NEPM II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the NextEra Companies, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/16/16.

    Accession Number: 20160516-5405.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2724-004.

    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado IPP, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Black Hills Colorado IPP, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/16/16.

    Accession Number: 20160516-5404.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1398-002.

    Applicants: Provision Power & Gas, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to May 10, 2016 Provision Power & Gas, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 5/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160510-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1714-000.

    Applicants: BTG Pactual Commodities (US) LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession to be effective 5/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/16/16.

    Accession Number: 20160516-5340.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1715-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3163 Basin Electric and MidAmerican Energy Attachment AO to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/16/16.

    Accession Number: 20160516-5341.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1716-000.

    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a Certificate of Concurrence to be effective 5/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/16/16.

    Accession Number: 20160516-5358.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1717-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-05-17_RS 38 Cancellation of RS 38 EGSL-ENOI Amended JPZ Agreement to be effective 8/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1718-000.

    Applicants: Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC.

    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Tesoro Refinings Triennial Review Filing to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 7/18/16.

    Accession Number: 20160517-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    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 17, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12045 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic 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] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP13-483-000 5-2-2016 Thomas C. Tucker. 2. CP15-514-000 5-2-2016 Ohio Oil & Gas Association. 3. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-000 5-6-2016 American Petroleum Institute. 4. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-000 5-6-2016 Black Hills Exploration & Production. 5. CP11-161-000 5-6-2016 Greg Lotorto. 6. CP16-21-000 5-9-2016 John Puffer. 7. CP16-21-000 5-9-2016 Karen Miller. 8. CP16-21-000 5-10-2016 Mass Mailing.1 9. CP16-21-000 5-10-2016 Mass Mailing.2 10. CP16-21-000 5-10-2016 Mass Mailing.3 11. CP16-21-000 5-11-2016 Charlote Forddman. 12. CP15-554-000, CP15-554-001 5-11-2016 William Limpert. Exempt: 1. P-10482-000 5-2-2016 U.S. House Representative Ron Kind. 2. CP15-558-000 5-2-2016 State of New Jersey Assemblyman Erik Peterson. 3. CP15-514-000 5-2-2016 State of Ohio House Representative Ron Hood. 4. P-13755-000, P-13757-000, P-13761-000, P-13768-000 5-4-2016 U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. 5. CP15-514-000 5-5-2016 State of Ohio House Representative Tim Schaffer. 6. CP16-21-000 5-5-2016 Town of Temple, New Hampshire Office of the Selectman.4 7. CP16-21-000 5-10-2016 U.S. House Representative Anne McLane Kuster. 8. CP16-21-000 5-10-2016 U.S. Senator Kelly A. Ayotte. 9. CP15-514-000 5-10-2016 State of Ohio Senator William Seitz. 10. CP16-21-000 5-11-2016 Town of Milford, New Hampshire Town Administrator Mark Bender. 1 9 letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number. 2 6 letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number. 3 6 letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number. 4 Chairman George Willard, Selectman Ken Caisse, Selectman Gail Cromwell. Dated: May 17, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12044 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0894; FRL-9946-71-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives—Requirements for Manufacturers AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR) “Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives—Requirements for Manufacturers” (EPA ICR No. 0309.15, OMB Control No. 2060-0150) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2016. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0894, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James W. Caldwell, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6405A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9303; fax number: (202) 343-2800; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: In accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 79, subparts A, B, C, and D, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives, manufacturers (including importers) of motor-vehicle gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel fuel, and additives to those fuels, are required to have these products registered by EPA prior to their introduction into commerce. Registration involves providing a chemical description of the fuel or additive, and certain technical, marketing, and health-effects information. The development of health-effects data, as required by 40 CFR part 79, subpart F, is covered by a separate information collection (EPA ICR No. 1696.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0297). Manufacturers are also required to submit periodic reports (annually for additives, quarterly and annually for fuels) on production volume and related information. The information is used to identify products whose evaporative or combustion emissions may pose an unreasonable risk to public health, thus meriting further investigation and potential regulation. The information is also used to ensure that fuel additives comply with EPA requirements for protecting catalytic converters and other automotive emission controls. The data have been used to construct a comprehensive data base on fuel and additive composition. The Mine Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor restricts the use of diesel additives in underground coal mines to those registered by EPA. Most of the information has been claimed by the manufacturers as CBI.

    Form Numbers: EPA Forms 3520-12, 3520-12A, 3520-12Q, 3520-13, 3520-13A, and 3520-13B.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Manufacturers and importers of motor-vehicle gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel fuel, and additives to those fuels.

    Respondents Obligation to Respond: Mandatory per 40 CFR part 79.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1950.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly, annually.

    Total Estimated Burden: 21,000 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total Estimated Cost: $1.9 million per year, includes $50,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 400 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to an increase in the number of registered fuels and fuel additives for which periodic reports are required.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Byron J. Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12105 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0178; FRL-9946-57-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; EPA Application Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request, EPA Application Materials for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (EPA ICR no. 2549.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a new collection. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0178, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Fligger, Municipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater Management, 4201-T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2992; fax number: (202) 501-2346; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The collection of information is necessary in order to receive applications for credit assistance pursuant to section 5024 of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) of 2014, 33 U.S.C 3903. The purpose of the WIFIA program is to provide Federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees to eligible clean water and drinking water projects.

    WIFIA requires that an eligible entity submit to the Administrator an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information, as the Secretary or the Administrator may require to receive assistance under WIFIA. In order to satisfy these requirements, EPA must collect an application from applicants seeking funding. The Letters of Interest and Applications collected from loan applicants through this solicitation will be used by EPA, the WIFIA program office, and an evaluation team to evaluate applications for credit assistance under the WIFIA eligibility requirements and selection criteria.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: The Letters of Interest and Applications collected from loan applicants through this solicitation will be used by EPA to evaluate requests for credit assistance under the WIFIA eligibility requirements and selection criteria.

    Respondent's Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain credit assistance pursuant to section 5024 of WIFIA, 33 U.S.C. 3903.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 25 per year (total).

    Frequency of Response: one per respondent.

    Total Estimated Burden: 1,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total Estimated Cost: $1,489,594 (per year), includes no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Andrew D. Sawyers, Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12106 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Petition No. P1-16] Petition of COSCO Container Lines Company Limited for an Exemption From Commission Regulations; Notice of Filing of Request for Extension of Time

    This is to provide notice of filing and to invite comments on or before May 27, 2016, with regard to a requested extension of time for an exemption previously granted as described below.

    On January 15, 2016, COSCO Container Lines Company Limited (“COSCON”) (Petitioner), petitioned the Commission pursuant to 46 CFR 502.76 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, for an exemption from the Commission's rules requiring individual service contract amendments, 46 CFR 530.10. Petitioner explained that “[o]n or about March 1, 2016, COSCON will acquire by time charter the containerships and certain other assets of China Shipping Container Lines Co. (“China Shipping”)” and, as such, requested that the Commission permit the submission of a “universal notice to the Commission and to the service contract parties” instead of filing an amendment for each of the seven hundred (700) service contracts that will be assigned to COSCON. In addition COSCON proposed to send electronic notice to each shipper counter party. Because China Shipping tariffs would be taken over by COSCON and renumbered and republished, COSCON also sought a waiver to avoid amending each contract with the new tariff number, by publishing a notice of the change in the existing China Shipping and COSCON tariffs. Notice of the Petition appeared in the Federal Register on January 27, 2016, 81 FR 4627.

    The Commission granted the Petition by Order on February 29, 2016 and ordered that the new COSCON tariff remain in effect only until June 1, 2016 noting that “most of the relevant service contracts will expire on or before April 30, 2016, rendering the new tariffs unnecessary after that date.” On May 13, 2016, COSCON filed a Petition for extension of the exemption stating that “there remains a very limited number of shippers (around 30), as to which the discussions have taken longer than COSCON anticipated,” and so requests a continuation of the exemption to July 31, 2016.

    The Petition and related documents are posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fmc.gov/p1-16. Comments filed in response to this Petition will be posted on the Commission's Web site at this location.

    In order for the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the Petition requesting extension of the exemption, interested persons are requested to submit views or arguments in reply to the Petition for Extension of Exemption no later than May 27, 2016. Commenters must send an original and 5 copies to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, and be served on Petitioner's counsel, Robert B. Yoshitomi, or Eric C. Jeffrey, Nixon Peabody LLP, 799 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001. A PDF copy of the reply must also be sent as an attachment to [email protected] Include in the email subject line “Petition No P1-16.”

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12020 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0077; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 13] Submission for OMB Review; Quality Assurance Requirements AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning quality assurance requirements.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0077, Quality Assurance Requirements”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0077, Quality Assurance Requirements” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0077, Quality Assurance Requirements.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0077, Quality Assurance Requirements, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, at 202-501-1448 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Supplies and services acquired under Government contracts must conform to the contract's quality and quantity requirements. FAR Part 46 prescribes inspection, acceptance, warranty, and other measures associated with quality requirements. Standard clauses related to inspection require the contractor to provide and maintain an inspection system that is acceptable to the Government; gives the Government the right to make inspections and test while work is in process; and requires the contractor to keep complete, and make available to the Government, records of its inspection work. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 11794 on March 7, 2016. No comments were received.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 138,292.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.03226.

    Total Responses: 142,753.

    Hours per Response: .83511.

    Total Burden hours: 119,214.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0077, Quality Assurance Requirements, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12002 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-16-16BX] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Monitoring and Reporting System (MRS) for Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) Program Awardees—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Sexual violence (SV) is a major public health problem, but it is preventable. According to CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the U.S. have been raped during their lifetime, and nearly 1 in 2 women and 1 in 5 men have experienced severe SV victimization other than rape at some point in their lives. The majority of victimization starts early in life with approximately 80% of female victims experiencing their first rape before the age of 25, and almost half experiencing their first rape before the age of 18.

    CDC's RPE Program is a national initiative that addresses SV through cooperative agreement funding and technical assistance to health departments in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and four territories (e.g., Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands) to conduct state-, district-, and territorial-wide SV prevention activities. The Violence against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and as amended in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 authorize the RPE program and legislatively states that awardees will allot RPE funds for prevention activities conducted by local organizations (i.e., RPE sub-awardees), which include rape crisis centers; State, territorial, or tribal sexual assault coalitions; and other public and private nonprofit entities (e.g., community-based organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and academic institutions).

    The CDC seeks a three-year OMB approval to collect information from 55 RPE awardees (health departments in all 50 states, District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories, i.e., Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands) and their designees. RPE awardees will report activity information to CDC annually through the Monitoring and Reporting System (MRS), which consists of two reporting tools, Work Plan Tool and Program Report Tool. The Work Plan Tool consists of items about awardees' annual goals, objectives, progress, and performance towards overall cooperative agreement purpose and strategies. The Program Report Tool consists of items to assess awardees' implementation, use of evidence-based prevention strategies, and use of the public health approach. The tools in the MRS provide a systematic format to collect data related to implementation and performance consistently across all awardees.

    Information to be collected will provide crucial data for program performance monitoring, will allow CDC analyze and synthesize information across multiple RPE programs, help ensure consistency in documenting progress and TA, enhance accountability of the use of federal funds, and provide timely reports as frequently requested by HHS, the White House, and Congress. It provides CDC with the capacity to respond in a timely manner to requests for information about the program, improve real-time communications between CDC and RPE awardees, and strengthen CDC's ability to monitor and evaluate awardees' progress and performance.

    The estimated annual burden hours are 654. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • RPE Program Awardees
  • (State, District of Columbia, and Territorial Health Departments) and Designees
  • Work Plan Tool—Initial 18 1 10
    Program Report Tool—Initial 18 1 8 Work Plan Tool—Annual Reporting 55 1 3 Program Report Tool—Annual Reporting 55 1 3
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12053 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16AJE; Docket No. CDC-2016-0043] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Longitudinal Study—Feasibility Component. This project will provide a logistical test of proposed survey procedures along with contact, interview, and examination rates for a sample of previously examined NHANES participants. The information obtained will be used to determine the feasibility of conducting future follow-up surveys.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0043 by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leroy A. Richardson, the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    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 collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. 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.

    Proposed Project

    The NHANES Longitudinal Study—Feasibility Component—New—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability; environmental, social and other health hazards; and determinants of health of the population of the United States. Under this authorization, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) have been conducted periodically between 1970 and 1994, and continuously since 1999 by NCHS, CDC to produce descriptive statistics on the health and nutrition status of the general population based on direct physical measurements.

    The increasing prevalence of obesity and chronic diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney diseases, is an important public health issue. If feasible, re-contacting past NHANES participants could provide information about changes in their health condition, exposure to risk factors, and utilization of healthcare since the time of their original NHANES exam, thereby making it possible to estimate the incidence of various chronic conditions. The survey's extensive baseline data on health conditions, nutritional status, risk behaviors, and environmental exposures could further allow the identification and monitoring of the impact of these factors on the participant's current health status. Planning activities for a future longitudinal study of all NHANES examined adults from 2007-2014 have been initiated. This study—the NHANES Longitudinal Study, targeted to start data collection in 2019 or 2020, will provide data to estimate the incidence of selected health outcomes in the U.S. population and relative risk related to other baseline data. The data collection effort proposed in this announcement is only for the Feasibility Component of the NHANES Longitudinal Study. The interview and examination content proposed in the Feasibility Component represents the core module of the future NHANES Longitudinal Study.

    Not since the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study (NHEFS), which was also conducted by NCHS, has there been a follow-up of a nationally representative cohort to assess the relations between baseline clinical, nutritional, and behavioral factors to subsequent morbidity and mortality. While NCHS has prior experience conducting the follow-up of the NHANES I cohort in 1982-1984, more than 30 years has passed. Since then, response rates in major federal surveys have declined and obtaining cooperation from the household population has become more difficult. Therefore, before attempting to launch a full scale data collection effort among all examined adults from NHANES 2007-2014, we propose conducting a feasibility study (the NHANES Longitudinal Study—Feasibility Component) to determine whether previously examined participants can be successfully traced, interviewed, and examined. The proposed Feasibility Component is comprised of two elements: (1) A field feasibility test for the core module of the NHANES Longitudinal Study; and (2) a series of targeted methodological tests of additional components and procedures.

    An annual sample of 400 respondents (total of 800 participants over the 2-year period) will be selected from the 2007-2014 NHANES examinees (20 years and older) to participate in the field feasibility test. Of these, we expect approximately 11% to be deceased prior to the re-contact, resulting in a target annual sample of 356 living examinees and 44 deceased proxy interview respondents.

    As part of the preparation efforts for a longitudinal study of all examined adults from NHANES 2007-2014, up to 375 additional persons per year (750 participants over the 2-year period) may be asked to participate in targeted tests of proposed methods and procedures such as bio-specimen collections, cognitive testing for questions, or protocol tests for additional exam components. These targeted tests will only occur if resources permit and if tracing and participation in the field feasibility test is successful. These targeted methodological studies will be conducted with paid volunteers or past NHANES participants who are not part of the potential NHANES longitudinal study sample (for example, past NHANES participants from the 1999-2006 cycle).

    Participation in the field feasibility test and the targeted methodological studies is completely voluntary and confidential. The estimated average burden for the field feasibility test is 42 minutes per respondent (1.5 hours per respondent for 356 living participants and 40 minutes per respondent for 44 proxy of deceased participants, annually). The average burden for the targeted methodological study respondents is 1 hour. A two-year approval is requested.

    Demographic information such as name, address, phone numbers, and social security number collected in the baseline NHANES will be used to locate the sampled 800 field feasibility test participants (annual sample of 400). Prior to the re-contact, a review of NHANES-linked mortality files will be conducted to assist in determining the vital status of sampled participants.

    Trained interviewers will visit the sampled participants at home to conduct an in-person interview and a health examination. Information that will be collected through the interview includes health status and medical conditions, health care services, health behaviors, and sociodemographic characteristics. In addition, permission for collecting hospital discharge data, including diagnoses at discharge and procedures performed during hospitalization will be obtained during the interview.

    Following the interview, a health examination will be conducted as part of the home visit. The respondent's weight, waist circumference, and sitting blood pressure will be measured, and a monofilament assessment may be conducted for neuropathy. In addition, blood and urine will be collected. Examples of laboratory tests planned include hemoglobin A1c from the blood specimen, and albumin and creatinine from the urine collection. This proposed project will assess the feasibility of conducting these tests and procedures in the home examination setting.

    A proxy interview will be conducted via telephone for sampled participants who died prior to the re-contact. Information on medical conditions and overnight hospital stays since baseline will be collected.

    Although permission will be sought from all field feasibility test participants, hospitalization records will be obtained only for 120 participants annually (240 participants over the 2-year period) to evaluate the record retrieval protocol for the study cohort among different medical facilities. An average of 3 hospital stays per person is anticipated among this cohort, therefore, an estimated 360 requests (120 persons × 3 stays) will be made annually. The estimated burden for hospital record provider is 20 minutes per record.

    There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • 2007-2014 NHANES examinees Field feasibility test initial contact and appointment scheduling form 400 1 20/60 133 2007-2014 NHANES examinees Field feasibility test home visit 356 1 1 356 2007-2014 NHANES examinees Field feasibility test home urine collection 356 1 10/60 59 Proxy of deceased 2007-2014 NHANES examinees Field feasibility test deceased proxy interview 44 1 20/60 15 Hospital record providers Field feasibility test hospital records form 360 1 20/60 120 Adult volunteers (non-field feasibility test participants) Targeted methodological studies 375 1 1 375 Total 1,058
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12008 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30 Day-16-0987] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Qualitative Information Collection on Emerging Diseases among the Foreign-born in the U.S. (OMB Control No. 0920-0987, Expires 09/30/2016)—Extension—Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ), requests approval for an extension of the current generic information collection Qualitative Information Collection on Emerging Diseases among the Foreign-born in the U.S. (OMB Control Number 0920-0987, expiration date 9/30/2016).

    This qualitative data collection is needed by DGMQ because foreign-born individuals are considered hard-to-reach populations and are often missed by routine information collection systems in the United States. As a consequence, limited information is available about the health status, knowledge, attitudes, health beliefs and practices related to communicable diseases and other emerging health issues (e.g., tuberculosis, parasitic diseases, lead poisoning, and mental health issues) among foreign-born populations in the United States. Foreign-born populations are very diverse in terms of countries of origin, socio-demographic, cultural and linguistic characteristics and geographic destinations in the U.S. Data is especially limited at the local level.

    The purpose of the extension is to continue efforts to improve the agency's understanding of the health status, risk factors for disease, and other health outcomes among foreign-born individuals in the United States. Numerous types of data will be collected under the auspices of this generic information collection. These include, but are not limited to, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behavioral intentions, practices, behaviors, skills, self-efficacy, and health information needs and sources.

    For example, CDC recently used this generic to collect feedback on Mexican-born audience's preferences for messaging and communication about mosquito-borne diseases to develop effective prevention campaigns as these diseases—especially Zika—pose an increasing threat to global health security.

    Under the terms of this generic, CDC will employ focus groups and key informant interviews to collect information. Depending on the specific purpose, the information collection may be conducted either in-person, by telephone, on paper, or online. For each generic information collection, CDC will submit to OMB the project summary and information collection tools.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours

    This requests entails a total of 1,025 respondents and 825 burden hours annually. The respondents to these information collections are foreign born individuals in the United States. There is no cost to respondents other than the time required to provide the information requested.

    Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Foreign-born from specific country of birth in the United States Screeners for focus groups (assuming 2 screenings for each recruited participant in focus groups) (300X2 = 600) 600 1 10/60 Foreign-born from specific country of birth in the United States Focus Groups (Approximately 30 focus groups/year and 10 participants per focus group) 300 1 2 Foreign-born community leaders and staff from organizations serving those communities Key informant interviews (Approximately 125 interviews/year) 125 1 1
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12010 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-0950; Docket No. CDC-2016-0044] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed revision of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES programs produce descriptive statistics which measure the health and nutrition status of the general population.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0044 by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    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 collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. 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.

    Proposed Project

    The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), (OMB No. 0920-0950, expires 12/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability; environmental, social and other health hazards; and determinants of health of the population of the United States. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) have been conducted periodically between 1970 and 1994, and continuously since 1999 by the National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. Annually, approximately 14,410 respondents participate in some aspect of the full survey. Up to 3,500 additional persons might participate in tests of procedures, special studies, or methodological studies (Table 1). Participation in NHANES is completely voluntary and confidential. A three-year approval is requested.

    NHANES programs produce descriptive statistics which measure the health and nutrition status of the general population. Through the use of physical examinations, laboratory tests, and interviews NHANES studies the relationship between diet, nutrition and health in a representative sample of the United States. NHANES monitors the prevalence of chronic conditions and risk factors. NHANES data are used to produce national reference data on height, weight, and nutrient levels in the blood. Results from more recent NHANES can be compared to findings reported from previous surveys to monitor changes in the health of the U.S. population over time. NCHS collects personal identification information. Participant level data items will include basic demographic information, name, address, social security number, Medicare number and participant health information to allow for linkages to other data sources such as the National Death Index and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

    A variety of agencies sponsor data collection components on NHANES. To keep burden down, NCHS cycles in and out various components. The 2017-2018 NHANES physical examination includes the following components: Anthropometry (all ages), 24-hour dietary recall (all ages), physician's examination (all ages, blood pressure is collected here), oral health examination (ages 1 and older), and hearing (ages 6-19 and 70+).

    While at the examination center additional interview questions are asked (6 and older), a second 24-hour dietary recall (all ages) is scheduled to be conducted by phone 3-10 days later. In 2017 we plan to add a liver elastography (ultrasound) exam with a set of alcohol questions to complement this exam, an Oral Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) follow-up, and cycle back in bone density for hip and spine into the Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) exam for (ages 50+). The osteoporosis questionnaire will also cycle back into NHANES to complement the changes to the DXA exam. These questions will be asked of those 40+ In addition, the age range for the existing DXA total body scan will be changed from 6-59 years to 8-69 years.

    NHANES plans to conduct a blood pressure methodology study. The study population will be NHANES participants aged 6 and older who agree to come to the Mobile Examination Center (MEC). The survey would also like to conduct an Ambulatory Blood Pressure Pilot Study among NHANES participants ages 18 and older.

    The bio-specimens collected for laboratory tests include urine, blood, vaginal and penile swabs, oral rinses and household water collection. Serum, plasma and urine specimens are stored for future testing, including genetic research, if the participant consents. NHANES 2017-18 plans to add three Phthalates in urine (ages 3+), nine Urinary flame retardants in urine (ages 3+), one Insect repellant in urine (ages 3+), one Volatile organic compound (VOC) metabolite in urine (ages 3+), eighteen Tobacco biomarkers in urine (ages 3+), two Metals in urine (ages 3+), Vitamin C in serum (ages 6+), Vitamins A, E, and carotenoids in serum (ages 6+), Unsaturated Iron Binding Capacity (UIBC)/Total Iron Binding Capacity (TIBC) in serum (ages 12+), and Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) in sera (ages 1-5). Consent to store DNA is cycling back into NHANES.

    In addition metals in whole blood are changing from a one-half sample to a full sample (ages 1+). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are being discontinued in the smoker oversample subgroup, however testing will continue in a 1/3 subsample of general NHANES participants.

    The 2017-18 survey will also bring back the Flexible Consumer Behavior Survey Phone follow-Up questionnaire for participant ages 1+. This takes place in the home after the second dietary recall is completed.

    The following major examination or laboratory items, that had been included in the 2015-2016 NHANES, were cycled out for NHANES 2017-2018: Pubertal maturation, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), dual X-ray absorptiometry scans for vertebral fractures and aortic calcification, three metals in serum and three hormones and binding proteins.

    Most sections of the NHANES interviews provide self-reported information to be used either in concert with specific examination or laboratory content, as independent prevalence estimates, or as covariates in statistical analysis (e.g., socio-demographic characteristics). Some examples include alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, sexual behavior, prescription and aspirin use, and indicators of oral, bone, reproductive, and mental health. Several interview components support the nutrition monitoring objective of NHANES, including questions about food security and nutrition program participation, dietary supplement use, and weight history/self-image/related behavior.

    In 2017-2018, we also plan to conduct a Dietary Supplement Imaging pilot study, as well as implement multi-mode screening and electronic consent procedures in NHANES. The consent for birth certificate linkage that had been included in previous NHANES will be dropped from NHANES 2017-2018.

    There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per response (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Individuals in households NHANES Questionnaire 14,410 1 2.5 36,025 Individuals in households Blood Pressure Methodology Study Phase 1 1,404 1 30/60 702 Individuals in households Blood Pressure Methodology Study Phase 2 2,000 1 30/60 1,000 Individuals in households Ambulatory Blood Pressure Pilot Study 1,200 1 25 30,000 Individuals in households Oral HPV rinse Follow-up Study 6 months (estimated 80% of original sample of 3600) 2,880 1 10/60 480 Individuals in households Oral HPV rinse Follow-up Study 12 Months (estimated 70% of original sample) 2,520 1 10/60 420 Individuals in households Oral HPV rinse Follow-up Study 18 months (estimated 60% of original sample) 2,160 1 10/60 360 Individuals in households Oral HPV rinse Follow-up Study 24 Months (estimated 50% of original sample) 1,800 1 10/60 300 Individuals in households Flexible Consumer Behavior Survey Phone Follow-Up 5,000 1 20/60 1,667 Individuals in households Special Studies 3,500 1 3 10,500 Total 81,454
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12009 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Notice of Request for Information by the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (Advisory Council) requests information from the general public and stakeholders related to efforts and strategies to combat antibiotic-resistance. In the process of developing their report, Initial Assessments of the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, the Advisory Council followed the framework of the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (Action Plan) to hear about a wide range of ongoing and planned activities by the federal government, including some stakeholders/sectors relevant to this overall effort. This Request for Information (RFI) offers the opportunity for interested individuals, organizations, associations, industries, and others, to provide their feedback. Responses to the questions must be received by 11:59 p.m. on June 22, 2016 to be considered. The questions are also available through an online form on the Advisory Council Web page at www.hhs.gov/ash/carb. Individuals who wish to send in their responses via email should send an email to [email protected], indicating the question number(s) for which they are responding.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on June 22, 2016 to be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Individuals are encouraged to submit their responses through one of the following methods. Utilization of the online form available on www.hhs.gov/ash/carb is the preferred method of submission. Should you choose to send in your responses via email, please be sure to include the question number(s) in the subject line. Do not include in your response information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the federal government to form a binding contract or issue a grant. Please be aware that your comments will not affirmatively be posted publicly, however they may be made available to the public, in part or in full, subject to applicable laws and regulations.

    Online Form: www.hhs.gov/ash/carb. Online submissions will receive an automatic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response, but will not receive individualized feedback on any suggestions.

    Email: [email protected] Please indicate the question number(s) in the subject line of your email. Email submissions will receive an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response, but will not receive individualized feedback on any suggestions.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under Executive Order 13676, dated September 18, 2014, authority was given to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish the Advisory Council, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture. Activities of the Advisory Council are governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

    The Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS regarding programs and policies intended to support and evaluate the implementation of Executive Order 13676, including the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and the Action Plan. The Advisory Council shall function solely for advisory purposes.

    In carrying out its mission, the Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by optimizing their use; advance research to develop improved methods for combating antibiotic resistance and conducting antibiotic stewardship; strengthen surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; prevent the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; advance the development of rapid point-of-care and agricultural diagnostics; further research on new treatments for bacterial infections; develop alternatives to antibiotics for agricultural purposes; maximize the dissemination of up-to-date information on the appropriate and proper use of antibiotics to the general public and human and animal healthcare providers; and improve international coordination of efforts to combat antibiotic resistance. In response to their mission, the Advisory Council recently released their first report, Initial Assessments of the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, at their second public meeting held on March 30-31, 2016, in Washington, DC.

    Background: In the process of developing their report, the Advisory Council followed the framework of the Action Plan to hear about a wide range of ongoing and planned activities by the federal government, including some stakeholders/sectors relevant to this overall effort. Acknowledging that there are others who the Advisory Council would like to hear from, they are seeking that information through this RFI. The purpose of the questions posed in this RFI is to gain additional information from the public on the subject matter in several areas addressed in the Action Plan. The responses gathered from the RFI will be reviewed by the members of the Advisory Council and will be taken into consideration as they move forward with their activities. The responses provided are for the Advisory Council's informational purposes only. Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responders are free to address any or all of the questions below.

    Request for Information: To solicit additional information from the public, including individuals, organizations, associations, and industries involved in combating antibiotic-resistance, the Advisory Council seeks responses on the following requests for information:

    1. Describe how organizations are influencing curricula regarding primary prevention (antibiotic stewardship, infection prevention, and control). Please include information about certification examinations, requirements, and continuing education, if relevant.

    2. Describe how healthcare organizations can best: (a) Educate and provide feedback to providers in clinics/facilities about infectious diseases diagnostic testing, optimal antibiotic prescribing, and infection prevention; where relevant, please include information about what incentives and disincentives these organizations have in place with the goal of improving antibiotic prescribing (e.g., using clinical decision support) and prevent spread of resistant infections; and, (b) encourage and/or incentivize providers to report antibiotic use and resistance data for all patient populations.

    3. Please provide examples of successful behavior change models that can be applied to preventive strategies, such as infection control and antibiotic stewardship.

    4. Please provide information on the best ways to collect data on antibiotic use [and resistance] in animal agriculture through public-private collaborations. Your response can include information on the types of data to be collected, including the method of collection, and the metrics for reporting the data. If helpful, please cite sample models as examples to depict your answer.

    5. Please provide information on the different resources that exist to promote the understanding of how antibiotics are being used in humans and animals in different parts of the world. Your response can include information on the types of support to connect with such resources, as appropriate (examples include public-private partnerships, strategic resourcing, or other means).

    More information can be found at www.hhs.gov/ash/carb.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Bruce Gellin, Designated Federal Officer, Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12043 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-44-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; 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: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Neurotransporters, Receptors, and Calcium Signaling Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Westin Crystal City, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Peter B. Guthrie, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4182, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1239, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westgate Hotel, 1055 2nd Ave., San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: John Bleasdale, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6170, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-4514, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group; Gene and Drug Delivery Systems Study Section.

    Date: June 22-23, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Amy L. Rubinstein, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5152, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9754, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Cellular and Molecular Biology of Glia Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westgate Hotel, 1055 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Linda MacArthur, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4187, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-537-9986, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Neurobiology of Motivated Behavior Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Warwick Allerton Hotel, 701 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60654.

    Contact Person: Jasenka Borzan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892-7814, 301-435-1787, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Oncology 1—Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Tumor Microenvironment Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Solamar, 435 6th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Angela Y. Ng, Ph.D., MBA, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6200, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1715, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Hepatobiliary Pathophysiology Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: May Flower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Jonathan K. Ivins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2190, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-1245, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Gastrointestinal Mucosal Pathobiology Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard by Marriott Downtown Silver Spring, 8506 Fenton Street, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Contact Person: Aiping Zhao, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 2188, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892-7818, (301) 435-0682, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Population Sciences and Epidemiology Integrated Review Group; Social Sciences and Population Studies B Study Section.

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Fairmont Hotel San Francisco, 950 Mason Street, San Francisco, CA 94108.

    Contact Person: Kate Fothergill, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3142, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2309, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Respiratory Integrative Biology and Translational Research Study Section.

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231.

    Contact Person: Bradley Nuss, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4142, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8754, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-RM15-021: Metabolomics Data Analysis (R03).

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Kee Hyang Pyon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5148, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group; Health Disparities and Equity Promotion Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance New Orleans Pere Marquette Hotel, 817 Common Street, New Orleans, LA 70112.

    Contact Person: Delia Olufokunbi Sam, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0684, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Cellular, Molecular and Integrative Reproduction Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Gary Hunnicutt, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6164, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0229, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Clinical and Integrative Diabetes and Obesity Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Handlery Union Square Hotel, 351 Geary Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Hui Chen, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1044, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Integrative Physiology of Obesity and Diabetes Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Washington DC, Dupont Circle, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Raul Rojas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6185, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-6319, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Systemic Injury by Environmental Exposure.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Patricia Greenwel, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2178, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1169, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project: Biochemical Mechanisms of Phosphatidylinositol-(3,4,5)-Trisphosphate (PIP3) Regulation.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Maria DeBernardi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6158, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1355, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Neurodifferentiation, Plasticity, Regeneration and Rhythmicity Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Marines Memorial Club Hotel, 609 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94109.

    Contact Person: Joanne T. Fujii, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4184, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1178, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group; Biostatistical Methods and Research Design Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Peter J. Kozel, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1116, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 17, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12023 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Sensory and Motor Neurosciences, Cognition and Perception.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The St. Regis Washington DC, 923 16th Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    Contact Person: Sharon S. Low, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5104, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-1487, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Immunology.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Alok Mulky, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4203, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3566, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Brain Disorders and Related Neurosciences.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham Grand Hotel, Chicago, 71 East Upper Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Vilen A. Movsesyan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040M, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7278, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Neurodevelopment, Synaptic Plasticity and Neurodegeneration.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites Convention Center, DC, 900 10th St. NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    Contact Person: Mary Schueler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0996, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Cell Biology, Developmental Biology, and Bioengineering.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westgate Hotel, 1055 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Raj K. Krishnaraju, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6190, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1047, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Drug Discovery for Aging, Neuropsychiatric and Neurologic Disorders.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham Grand Hotel, 71 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Yuan Luo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-915-6303, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Ocular Surface, Cornea, and Refractive Error.

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

    Contact Person: Kristin Kramer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5205, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 437-0911, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Clinical Neurophysiology, Devices, Neuroprosthetics, and Biosensors.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Cristina Backman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, ETTN IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR13-325: Development of Appropriate Pediatric Formulations.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites Convention Center, DC, 900 10th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    Contact Person: Paek-Gyu Lee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4201, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 613-2064, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Medical Imaging.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    Contact Person: Leonid V. Tsap, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5128, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2507, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group; Adult Psychopathology and Disorders of Aging Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Marines' Memorial Club and Hotel, 609 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Serena Chu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BBBP IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3178, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 500-5829, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group; Prokaryotic Cell and Molecular Biology Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Dominique Lorang-Leins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, MSC 7766, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.326.9721, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 17, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12022 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Notice Announcing the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as the Sole CBP-Authorized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System for Processing Electronic Entry and Entry Summary Filings AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces that the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) will be the sole electronic data interchange (EDI) system authorized by the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for processing electronic entry and entry summary filings associated with most entry types. This document also announces that the Automated Commercial System (ACS) will no longer be a CBP-authorized EDI system for purposes of processing the electronic filings specified in this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective: July 23, 2016. ACE will be the sole CBP-authorized EDI system for processing electronic entry and entry summary filings of certain entry types, and ACS will no longer be a CBP-authorized EDI system for purposes of processing the electronic filings specified in this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions related to this notice may be emailed to [email protected] with the subject line identifier reading “ACS to ACE July 23, 2016 transition”.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background Statutory Authority

    Section 484 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1484), establishes the requirement for importers of record to make entry for merchandise to be imported into the customs territory of the United States. Customs entry information is used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) to determine whether merchandise may be released from CBP custody. Importers of record are also obligated to complete the entry by filing an entry summary declaring the value, classification, rate of duty applicable to the merchandise and such other information as is necessary for CBP to properly assess duties, collect accurate statistics and determine whether any other applicable requirement of law is met.

    The customs entry requirements were amended by Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, December 8, 1993), commonly known as the Customs Modernization Act, or Mod Act. In particular, section 637 of the Mod Act amended section 484(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(1)(A)) by revising the requirement to make and complete customs entry by submitting documentation to CBP to allow, in the alternative, the electronic transmission of such entry information pursuant to a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange (EDI) system. CBP created the Automated Commercial System (ACS) to track, control, and process all commercial goods imported into the United States. CBP established the specific requirements and procedures for the electronic filing of entry and entry summary data for imported merchandise through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) to ACS.

    Transition From ACS to ACE

    In an effort to modernize the business processes essential to securing U.S. borders, facilitating the flow of legitimate shipments, and targeting illicit goods pursuant to the Mod Act and the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884), CBP developed the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) to eventually replace ACS as the CBP-authorized EDI system. Over the last several years, CBP has tested ACE and provided significant public outreach to ensure that the trade community is fully aware of the transition from ACS to ACE.

    On February 19, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses, in order to reduce supply chain barriers to commerce while continuing to protect our national security, public health and safety, the environment, and natural resources. See 79 FR 10657 (February 25, 2014). Pursuant to EO 13659, a deadline of December 31, 2016, was established for participating Federal agencies to have capabilities, agreements, and other requirements in place to utilize the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and supporting systems, such as ACE, as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation (exclusive of applications for permits, licenses, or certifications) required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export.

    On October 13, 2015, CBP published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register (80 FR 61278) that designated ACE as a CBP-authorized EDI system. The designation of ACE as a CBP-authorized EDI system was effective November 1, 2015. In the Interim Final Rule, CBP stated that ACS would be phased out and anticipated that ACS would no longer be supported for entry and entry summary filing by the end of February 2016. Filers were encouraged to adjust their business practices so that they would be prepared when ACS was decommissioned.

    CBP has developed a staggered transition strategy for decommissioning ACS. The first two phases of the transition were announced in a Federal Register notice on February 29, 2016. (81 FR 10264). The third phase of the transition was announced in a Federal Register notice on May 16, 2016. (81 FR 30320). This notice announces the fourth phase of the transition. In this phase, CBP will decommission ACS for most entry and entry summary filings.

    ACE as the Sole CBP-Authorized EDI System for the Processing of Certain Electronic Entry and Entry Summary Filings

    This notice announces that, effective July 23, 2016, ACE will be the sole CBP-authorized EDI system for the electronic entry and entry summary filings listed below, for all filers. These electronic filings must be formatted for submission in ACE, and will no longer be accepted in ACS.

    • 01—Consumption—Free and Dutiable • 02—Consumption—Quota/Visa • 03—Consumption—Antidumping/Countervailing Duty • 06—Consumption—Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) • 07—Consumption—Antidumping/Countervailing Duty and Quota/Visa Combination • 11—Informal—Free and Dutiable • 12—Informal—Quota/Visa (other than textiles) • 21—Warehouse • 22—Re-Warehouse • 23—Temporary Importation Bond (TIB) • 31—Warehouse Withdrawal—Consumption • 32—Warehouse Withdrawal—Quota • 34—Warehouse Withdrawal—Antidumping/Countervailing Duty • 38—Warehouse Withdrawal—Antidumping/Countervailing Duty & Quota/Visa Combination • 51—Defense Contract Administration Service Region (DCASR) • 52—Government—Dutiable • 61—Immediate Transportation • 62—Transportation and Exportation • 63—Immediate Exportation • 69—Transit (Rail only) • 70—Multi-Transit (Rail only) ACS as the Sole CBP-Authorized EDI System for the Processing of Certain Electronic Entry and Entry Summary Filings

    Electronic entry and entry summary filings for the following entry types must continue to be filed only in ACS. CBP will publish a subsequent Federal Register Notice in the future when these entry and entry summary filings will be transitioned in ACE.

    • 08—NAFTA Duty Deferral • 09—Reconciliation Summary • 41—Direct Identification Manufacturing Drawback • 42—Direct Identification Unused Merchandise Drawback • 43—Rejected Merchandise Drawback • 44—Substitution Manufacturer Drawback • 45—Substitution Unused Merchandise Drawback • 46—Other Drawback Due to Low Shipment Volume, Filings for the Following Entry Types Will Not Be Automated in Either ACS or ACE • 04—Appraisement • 05—Vessel—Repair • 24—Trade Fair • 25—Permanent Exhibition • 26—Warehouse—Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) (Admission) • 33—Aircraft and Vessel Supply (For Immediate Exportation) • 64—Barge Movement • 65—Permit to Proceed • 66—Baggage Dated: May 18, 2016. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12067 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0017] Notice of Public Workshop Regarding the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 Implementation AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces a public workshop on Thursday, June 9, 2016 to discuss information sharing as related to Title I of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act.

    DATES:

    The workshop will be held on Thursday, June 9, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT. The meeting may conclude before the allotted time if all matters for discussion have been addressed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting location is the Navy League of the United States, 2300 Wilson Boulevard, #200, Arlington, VA 22201. See the Submitting Written Comments section for the address to submit written or electronic comments.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information about the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 and Automated Indicator Sharing can be found at: https://www.dhs.gov/ais.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions concerning the meeting, please contact [email protected] or Robert Hopkins, Director, External Affairs, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, Department of Homeland Security, [email protected] or (703) 235-5788.

    Background and Purpose

    On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 as a part of the FY16 omnibus spending bill. Both Congress and the White House were active on the issue of cybersecurity during 2015, with multiple bills passed in each chamber. The resulting law included in the omnibus spending legislation reflects a reconciliation of the cybersecurity bills passed in the House and Senate in 2015.

    Title I, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), authorizes companies to voluntarily share cyber threat indicators and defensive measures with the Federal Government, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) entities, and other private sector entities through a capability and process established by DHS. The law also:

    • Provides liability protection to private sector entities for information shared in accordance with the law;

    • Directs DHS to share private sector cyber threat indicators and defensive measures in an automated and real-time manner with Federal departments and agencies for cybersecurity purposes;

    • Establishes measures to ensure that cybersecurity information received, retained, or shared by the DHS mechanism will not violate the privacy or civil liberties of individuals, under procedures jointly drafted by the Department of Justice and DHS;

    • Protects shared information from public disclosure; and

    • Sunsets the provisions for these information sharing measures in 10 years.

    The CISA establishes an additional statutory basis for the Department's information sharing efforts with the Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS) initiative, which enables real-time sharing of cyber threat indicators between DHS and stakeholders in the public and private sectors. The DHS real-time sharing process (and the web form and email processes) for cyber threat indicator and defensive measure sharing do not replace pre-existing cyber incident and cyber-crime reporting.

    The purpose of the public workshop is to engage and educate stakeholders and the general public on CISA implementation and related issues such as:

    • What is CISA?

    • What is the Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS) initiative?

    • What are the privacy concerns around CISA and how are privacy protections built into information sharing?

    • What is the benefit of participating in an Information Sharing and Analysis Organization (ISAO) as it pertains to CISA?

    • How does an organization (Federal or non-federal) connect and participate in AIS?

    The event will consist of a combination of keynote addresses, presentations, and panel discussions, each of which will provide the opportunity for audience members to ask questions.

    Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact [email protected] and write “Special Assistance” in the subject box or contact the meeting coordinator from the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Meeting Details

    Members of the public may attend this workshop by RSVP only up to the seating capacity of the room. A valid government-issued photo identification (for example, a driver's license) will be required for entrance to the meeting space. Those who plan to attend should RSVP by emailing [email protected] 7 days prior to the meeting. Requests made after June 2, 2016 may not be able to be accommodated.

    We encourage you to participate in this meeting by submitting comments to the CISA Implementation mailbox ([email protected]), commenting orally, or submitting written comments to the DHS personnel attending the meeting who are identified to receive them.

    Submitting Written Comments

    You may also submit written comments to the docket using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Although comments are being submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, this is a tool to provide transparency to the general public, not because this is a rulemaking action.

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

    (4) Mail: Robert Hopkins, Director, External Affairs, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, NPPD, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0615, Arlington, VA 20598-0615.

    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods. All comments must either be submitted to the online docket on or before June 2, 2016, or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

    Authority:

    Secs. 103 and 105, Pub. L. 114-113, Div. N, Title I.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Andy Ozment, Assistant Secretary, Cybersecurity and Communications, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12018 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0043] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Temporary Protected Status, Form I-821; 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 or new 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 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0043 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0013. 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-2007-0013;

    (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-2007-0013 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.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Temporary Protected Status.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-821; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-821 is necessary for USCIS to gather the information necessary to adjudicate TPS applications and determine if an applicant is eligible for TPS.

    (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 I-821 is 368,760 respondents at an estimated 1 hour and 55 minutes (1.92 hours) per response. 366,235 respondents for biometrics processing at an estimated 1 hour and 10 minutes (1.17 hours) per response.

    (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 1,136,514 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 $46,555,950.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12048 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R7-ES-2016-N067; FXES11130700000-167-FF07CAFB00] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of a 5-Year Review of the Eskimo Curlew AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our intention to conduct a 5-year status review under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the Eskimo curlew. A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of information that has become available since the last review of the species in 2011.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration of your comments in our preparation of this 5-year status review, we must receive your comments and information by July 22, 2016. However, we will accept information about any species at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit your information on the current status of the Eskimo curlew by one of the following methods: Email: [email protected] or U.S. mail or hand delivery: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ATTN: Eskimo curlew, 101 12th Avenue, Room 110, Fairbanks, AK 99701. For more about submitting information, see Request for Information in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ted Swem, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, by telephone at 907-456-0441. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We are initiating a 5-year status review under the ESA for the Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis). A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of information that has become available since the last review of the species in 2011.

    Why do we conduct a 5-year review?

    Under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Further, our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species under active review. For additional information about 5-year reviews, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/recovery-overview.html, scroll down to “Learn More about 5-Year Reviews,” and click on our fact sheet.

    What information do we consider in our review?

    A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:

    (1) The biology of the species, including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

    (2) Habitat conditions, including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability;

    (3) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

    (4) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and

    (5) Other new information, data, or corrections, including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

    Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.

    In the case of the Eskimo curlew, we concluded in our 2011 5-year review that the probability that the species remained extant was extremely low based on the scarcity of recent sightings and the length of time that has passed since the last sighting that was confirmed with physical evidence. We will therefore focus this 5-year review upon reported sightings or other recent information on the species' possible existence. Thus, we ask, in particular, for information on recent sightings, including indication as to whether corroborating evidence (such as photographs) is available.

    Species Under Review

    Entity listed: Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis).

    Where listed: Wherever found.

    Classification: Endangered.

    Date listed (publication date for final listing rule): March 11, 1967, under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966.

    Federal Register citation for final listing rule: 32 FR 4001.

    Request for Information

    To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See What Information Do We Consider in Our Review? for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources. If you submit purported sightings of the species, please also provide supporting documentation in any form to the extent that it is available.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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.

    Completed and Active Reviews

    A list of all completed and currently active 5-year reviews addressing species for which the Alaskan Region of the Service has lead responsibility is available at http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/reviews.htm.

    Authority

    This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 12, 2016. Brian Glaspell, Acting Regional Director, Alaska Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12079 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NER-FRSP-20694; PS.SSARA0003.00.1] Minor Boundary Revision at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notification of boundary revision.

    SUMMARY:

    The boundary of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park is modified to include four tracts containing 25.55 acres of land, more or less, located in Orange County and Spotsylvania County, Virginia, immediately adjoining the boundary of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park. Subsequent to the proposed boundary revision, the National Park Service will acquire one tract by donation from the Civil War Trust and two tracts by purchase from the Central Virginia Battlefields Trust. The fourth tract, already owned by the United States and acquired as an uneconomic remnant, will be brought into the boundary so that it can be administered as part of the park.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this boundary revision is May 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The map depicting this boundary revision is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Northeast Region, New England Office, 115 John Street, 5th Floor, Lowell, MA 01852, and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deputy Realty Officer Rachel McManus, National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Northeast Region, New England Office, 115 John Street, 5th Floor, Lowell, MA 01852, telephone (978) 970-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 100506(c), the boundary of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park is modified to include four adjoining tracts totaling 25.55 acres of land. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 326/129075, dated July 8, 2015.

    54 U.S.C. 100506(c) provides that, after notifying the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the Federal Register. The Committees have been notified of this boundary revision. This boundary revision and subsequent acquisition will ensure preservation and protection of the park's scenic and historic resources.

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Michael A. Caldwell, Regional Director, Northeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12049 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-WV-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-998] Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 15, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Paice LLC of Baltimore, Maryland and Abell Foundation, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland. An amended complaint was filed on April 29, 2016. The amended complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain hybrid electric vehicles and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the '347 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (“the '634 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (“the '097 patent”). The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The amended complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the amended complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on May 17, 2016, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain hybrid electric vehicles and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 41 of the '347 patent; claims 33-44, 46, 50, 52-55, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 110, 112, 226, 227, 229-231, 239-241, 252, 253, 255-259, 265-267, 278, 279, 281-283, 285, 289-291 of the '634 patent; and claims 21, 27, 30, 33, and 37 of the '097 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    Paice LLC, 111 South Calvert Street, Suite 2310, Baltimore, MD 21202 Abell Foundation, Inc., 111 South Calvert Street, Suite 2300, Baltimore, MD 21202

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Volkswagen AG, Brieffach 1849, D-38436 Wolfsburg, Germany Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, VA 20171 Dr. Ing. H.C. F. Porsche AG, Porscheplatz 1, D-70435, Germany Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 980 Hammond Drive, Suite 1000, Atlanta, GA 30328 Audi AG, Ettinger Straße, D-85045, Ingolstadt, Germany Audi of America, LLC, 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, VA 20171

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.

    Responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the amended complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the amended complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the amended complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the amended complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 18, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12073 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-999] Certain Air Mattress Bed Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 20, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Select Comfort Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota and Select Comfort SC Corporation of Greenville, South Carolina. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States and the sale within the United States after importation of certain air mattress bed systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,848 (“the '848 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,389,554 (“the '554 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on May 17, 2016, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States or the sale within the United States after importation of certain air mattress bed systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 5, 6, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26 of the '554 patent and claims 1, 3-6, 10, 14, and 24 of the '848 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are: Select Comfort Corporation, 9800 59th Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55442 Select Comfort SC Corporation, 103 Shaw Street, Greenville, SC 29609

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    American National Manufacturing Inc., 252 Mariah Circle, Corona, CA 92879 Elements of Rest Inc., 1000 Marietta Street, Suite 106, Atlanta, GA 30318 Responsive Surface Technology LLC, 1000 Marietta Street, Suite 106, Atlanta, GA 30318 Dires LLC d/b/a Personal Comfort Bed, 3411 Lake Breeze Drive, Building 601, Suite E/F, Orlando, FL 32808

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 18, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12074 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-298 (Fourth Review)] Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective May 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On May 6, 2016, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (81 FR 5133, February 1, 2016) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on June 2, 2016, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before June 7, 2016 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by June 7, 2016. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    2 The Commission has found the response submitted by Columbian Home Products, LLC to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Determination.—The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority:

    This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 17, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12024 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1071 (Second Review)] Alloy Magnesium From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on alloy magnesium from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edward Petronzio ((202) 205-3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On May 6, 2016, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (81 FR 5136, February 1, 2016) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).2

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    2 Vice Chairman Dean A. Pinkert did not participate in the adequacy determination.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on June 2, 2016, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,3 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before June 7, 2016 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by June 7, 2016. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    3 The Commission has found the responses submitted by US Magnesium and The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 8319 to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 17, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12021 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before June 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201602-1218-001 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard Employment information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I that requires an Occupational Safety Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the PPE for Shipyard Employment Standard to provide and to ensure that each affected employee uses the appropriate PPE for the eyes, face, head, extremities, torso, and respiratory system whenever the worker is exposed to hazards that require the use of PPE. Such equipment includes protective clothing, protective shields, protective barriers, life-saving equipment, personal fall arrest systems, and positioning device systems that meet the applicable provisions of the subpart. This ICR covers hazard assessment and verification records and record disclosure during inspections. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0215.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2015 (80 FR 76712).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0215. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0215.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,759.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 2,089.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 172 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12019 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Worksite Report and Report of Federal Employment and Wages ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Multiple Worksite Report and Report of Federal Employment and Wages,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before June 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201601-1220-001 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Multiple Worksite Report and Report of Federal Employment and Wages information collection. States use the Multiple Worksite Report to collect employment and wages data from non-Federal businesses engaged in multiple operations within a State and subject to State Unemployment Insurance laws. The Report of Federal Employment and Wages is designed for Federal establishments covered under the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees program. These data are used for sampling, benchmarking, and economic analysis. BLS Authorizing Statute sections 1 and 2 and Social Security Act section 303 authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 1, 2; 42 U.S.C. 503.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1220-0134.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2015 (80 FR 79100).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1220-0134. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-BLS.

    Title of Collection: Multiple Worksite Report and Report of Federal Employment and Wages.

    OMB Control Number: 1220-0134.

    Affected Public: Federal Government and Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 142,554.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 570,216.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 210,980 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12080 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Office of Procurement; Public Availability of NASA FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its Service Contract Inventory for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were awarded in FY 2015. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy. NASA has posted documents associated with the Service Contract inventory, on the NASA Office of Procurement homepage at the following link: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/scinventory/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jamiel L. Charlton at (202) 358-0302 or [email protected]

    Manuel Quinones, Federal Register Liaison.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12144 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Initiate Section 106 Consultation for Proposed Changes to Arecibo Observatory Operations, Arecibo, Puerto Rico and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings and Comment Period AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and initiate Section 106 consultation for proposed changes to Arecibo Observatory operations, Arecibo, Puerto Rico and notice of public scoping meetings and comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the National Science Foundation (NSF) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate potential environmental effects of proposed changes to operations at Arecibo Observatory, in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. (See supplementary information below for more detail.) By this notice, NSF is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues to be analyzed in the EIS. NSF also intends to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to evaluate potential effects to the Arecibo Observatory, which is a historic property listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

    DATES:

    This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS and the initiation of public involvement under Section 106 per 36 CFR 800.2(d). Comments on issues may be submitted verbally during scoping meetings scheduled for June 7, 2016 (see details below) or in writing until June 23, 2016. To be eligible for inclusion in the Draft EIS, all comments must be received prior to the close of the scoping period. NSF will provide additional opportunities for public participation upon publication of the Draft EIS.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments related to this proposal by either of the following methods:

    Email to: [email protected], with subject line “Arecibo Observatory.”

    Mail to: Ms. Elizabeth Pentecost, RE: Arecibo Observatory, National Science Foundation, Suite 1045, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.

    Scoping Meetings: NSF will host two public scoping meetings.

    Daytime meeting: June 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., DoubleTree by Hilton San Juan, 105 Avenida De Diego, San Juan, PR, Phone: (787) 721-6500.

    Evening meeting: June 7, 2016, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Colegio de Ingenieros y Agrimensores de Puerto Rico/Puerto Rico Professional College of Engineers and Land Surveyors (Arecibo Chapter), Ave. Manuel T. Guillán Urdáz, Conector 129 Carr. 10, Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Phone: (787) 758-2250.

    Comments will be transcribed by a court reporter. Spanish language translation will be provided for simultaneous translation of presentations. Please contact NSF at least one week in advance of the meeting if you would like to request special accommodations (i.e., sign language interpretation, etc.).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information regarding the EIS process or Section 106 consultation, please contact: Ms. Elizabeth Pentecost, National Science Foundation, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230; telephone: (703) 292-4907; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Arecibo Observatory is an NSF-owned scientific research and education facility located in Puerto Rico. In 2011, NSF awarded a five-year Cooperative Agreement to SRI International (SRI), which together with Universities Space Research Association (USRA) and Universidad Metropolitana (UMET) have formed the Arecibo Management Team to operate and maintain the Arecibo Observatory for the benefit of research communities. Arecibo Observatory enables research in three scientific disciplines: Space and atmospheric sciences, radio astronomy, and solar system radar studies; the last of these is largely funded through a research award to USRA from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. An education and public outreach program complements the Arecibo Observatory scientific program. A key component of the Arecibo Observatory research facility is a 305-meter diameter, fixed, spherical reflector. Arecibo Observatory infrastructure includes instrumentation for radio and radar astronomy, ionospheric physics, office and laboratory buildings, a heavily utilized visitor and education facility, and lodging facilities for visiting scientists.

    Through a series of academic community-based reviews, NSF has identified the need to divest several facilities from its portfolio in order to retain the balance of capabilities needed to deliver the best performance on the key science of the present decade and beyond. In 2012, NSF's Division of Astronomical Sciences' (AST's) portfolio review committee recommended that “continued AST involvement in Arecibo . . . be re-evaluated later in the decade in light of the science opportunities and budget forecasts at that time.” In 2016, NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences' (AGS') portfolio review committee recommended significantly decreasing funding for the Space and Atmospheric Sciences portion of the Arecibo mission. In response to these evolving recommendations, in 2016, NSF completed a feasibility study to inform and define options for the observatory's future disposition that would involve significantly decreasing or eliminating NSF funding of Arecibo. Concurrently, NSF sought viable concepts of operations from the scientific community via a Dear Colleague Letter NSF 16-005 (see www.nsf.gov/AST), with responses due by January 15, 2016. Alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS will be refined through continued public input, with preliminary alternatives that include the following:

    • Continued NSF investment for science-focused operations (No-Action Alternative) • Collaboration with interested parties for continued science-focused operations • Collaboration with interested parties for transition to education-focused operations • Mothballing of facilities (suspension of operations in a manner such that operations could resume efficiently at some future date) • Deconstruction and site restoration

    The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including identification of viable alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EIS. At present, NSF has identified the following preliminary resource areas for analysis of potential impacts: Air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, solid waste generation, health and safety, socioeconomics, traffic, and groundwater resources. NSF will consult under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in coordination with this EIS process, as appropriate. Federal, state, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by NSF's decision on this proposal are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request to participate as a cooperating agency.

    Proposal Information: Information will be posted, throughout the EIS process, at www.nsf.gov/AST.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12036 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446, and 72-74; License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89; NRC-2016-0020] In the Matter of Luminant Generation Company LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Facility AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Direct and indirect transfer of license; order.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an order approving the direct transfer of ownership and indirect transfer of control of Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89 and the general license for the independent spent fuel storage installation facility from the current holder, Luminant Generation Company LLC, to as-yet unnamed companies, herein identified as Comanche Peak LLC, as owner, and Operating Company LLC, as operator. The NRC will issue conforming amendments to the FOLs for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed license transfer. No physical changes to the facility or operational changes were proposed in the application. The Order is effective upon issuance.

    DATES:

    The Order was issued on May 6, 2016, and is effective for 1 year.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0020 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0020. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The Order was issued to the licensee in a letter dated May 6, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16096A266).

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Watford, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1233, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The text of the Order is attached.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of May 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Margaret M. Watford, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    Attachment—Order Approving Transfer of Licenses and Approving Conforming Amendments United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    In the Matter of Luminant Generation Company LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2

    Dockets Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89 Order Approving the Transfer of Licenses and Approving Conforming Amendments I.

    Luminant Generation Company LLC (Luminant Power, the licensee) is the holder of the Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89 of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), and the holder of the general license for the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) facility. CPNPP is located in Somervell County, Texas.

    II.

    Pursuant to Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.80, “Transfer of licenses,” Luminant Generation Company LLC (Luminant Power) requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consent to the transfer of the FOL Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89 for CPNPP, and the general license for the ISFSI facility (Docket No. 72-74) from the current holder, Luminant Power, to as-yet unnamed companies, herein identified as Comanche Peak LLC (CP LLC), as owner, and Operating Company LLC (OpCo LLC), as operator (together these entities are referred to as “the licensees”). Luminant Power submitted the request by application dated November 12, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15320A093), as supplemented by letters dated December 9, 2015, and March 14, March 29, April 7, and April 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15345A048, ML16076A162, ML16091A121, ML16099A291, and ML16112A396, respectively).

    Luminant Power is acting on behalf of itself and the future to-be-formed companies. These future to-be-formed companies include the ultimate parent of CP LLC and OpCo LLC, Reorganized Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Corporation (Reorganized TCEH), and the intermediate parents, Intermediate Holding Company LLC, Asset Company LLC, and Preferred Stock Company Corporation (together with Luminant Power these entities are referred to as the “Applicants”). Entity names in the licensee's application and supplements are placeholders.

    On April 29, 2014, Luminant Power notified the NRC of its filing of a bankruptcy (ADAMS Accession No. ML14120A212). Luminant Power is owned by Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company LLC (EFCH), through its wholly owned subsidiaries. The EFCH is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings Corporation (EFH). The current and intended ownership structure of the facility is depicted in the simplified organizational charts provided in Exhibits A and B of Enclosure 1 in the submittal dated November 12, 2015. As a result of the proposed transactions and consistent with Exhibit B, EFH and EFCH will no longer ultimately own CPNPP. The licenses will be transferred from Luminant Power to CP LLC, responsible for ownership of the facility, and OpCo LLC, responsible for the operation and maintenance of CPNPP. At the emergence from bankruptcy, Reorganized TCEH, the ultimate parent company of CP LLC, will be owned by a numerous and diverse set of independent and unaffiliated stockholders. No single entity is expected to own a majority of, or exercise control over Reorganized TCEH or its Board of Directors. Current Luminant Power nuclear management and technical personnel will be employed by OpCo LLC. Accordingly, there will be no change in management or technical qualification, and OpCo LLC will continue to be technically qualified to operate the facility. No physical changes to the CPNPP and ISFSI facility or operational changes are proposed in the application.

    The transfer of the licenses includes elements of both a direct and indirect transfer. The transfer of ownership is a direct transfer because ownership is changing from one entity to another new and different entity. Ownership is being transferred from Luminant Power to a new company, CP LLC. The transfer of operations is an indirect transfer because the operator is not changing; it is being absorbed into another entity (OpCo LLC), and the operator's parent companies are changing. Luminant Power's parent companies are currently Luminant Holding Company LLC and its parent, Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company LLC. These companies will cease to exist and in their place, new companies—Intermediate Holding Company LLC and its parent, Reorganized TCEH—will be created. The operator will change to the extent that its name will change from Luminant Power to OpCo LLC; however, the management and technical personnel of the facility will not change. The change of the parent company of a licensed entity is considered an indirect transfer of control of the operating licenses.

    Approval of the transfer of the facility operating licenses and conforming license amendments was requested by the Applicants pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 50.90, “Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit.” A notice entitled, “Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendments,” was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6545). The NRC received no comments or hearing requests.

    Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the NRC shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the licensee's application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that the Applicants are qualified to hold the licenses to the extent proposed to permit the transfer of Luminant Power as possessor, owner, and operator. It also concludes that the transfer of the licenses are otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC, pursuant thereto, subject to the conditions set forth below. The NRC staff has further found that the application for the proposed license amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; the facilities will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission; there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the proposed license amendments can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; the issuance of the proposed license amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and the issuance of the proposed amendments will be in accordance with 10 CFR part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated May 6, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16096A266).

    III.

    Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application regarding the direct transfer of ownership and the indirect transfer of control of the licenses is approved, subject to the following conditions:

    1. The licensees must notify the NRC of the names of the directors and principal officers of Reorganized TCEH and any other changes to these positions that occur before emergence from bankruptcy as soon as they have been identified, but no later than 7 days before implementation of the transfer. Additional changes to these positions may occur post-emergence. The Applicants will notify the NRC no later than 120 days after the transfer of any changes in these personnel made during the first 90 days following emergence from bankruptcy.

    2. Following the subject transfer of control of the licenses, all of the directors of CP LLC and OpCo LLC who can vote on activities governed by the CPNPP licenses and all of the officers of CP LLC and OpCo LLC with direct responsibility for activities governed by the CPNPP licenses shall (1) be U.S. citizens and not appointed by a foreign entity and (2) have exclusive authority to ensure and shall ensure that the business and activities of OpCo LLC and CP LLC with respect to the CPNPP licenses is at all times conducted in a manner consistent with the public health and safety and common defense and security of the United States.

    3. The Reorganized TCEH Board of Directors shall adopt resolutions that any non-U.S. citizens or foreign-appointed U.S. citizens serving as either directors or executive officers of Reorganized TCEH, the ultimate parent, and intermediate parents of CP LLC and OpCo LLC shall not seek access to any classified information or to special nuclear material in the custody of the CPNPP licensees and shall not participate in or seek to influence operational decisions by the licensees regarding nuclear safety or security matters.

    4. CP LLC and OpCo LLC shall provide satisfactory documentary evidence to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation that, as of the date of the license transfer, the licensees reflected in the amended licenses have obtained the appropriate amount of insurance required of a licensee under 10 CFR part 140 and 10C FR 50.54(w).

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed transfer action, Luminant Power shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of such receipt within 5 business days, and of the date of the closing of the direct transfer no later than 7 business days before the date of the closing. Should the proposed transfer not be completed within 1 year from the date of this order, this order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by order. The conditions of this order may be amended upon application by the licensee and approval by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), license amendments that make changes, as indicated in Enclosure 2 to the cover letter forwarding this order, to conform the licenses to reflect the subject transfer are approved. The amendments will be revised only to reflect the final company names (yet to be decided), and shall be issued and made effective at the time the proposed license transfer is completed.

    This order is effective upon issuance.

    For further details with respect to this order, see the initial application dated November 12, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated December 9, 2015, and March 14, March 29, April 7, and April 20, 2016, and the safety evaluation dated the same date as this order, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day of May 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Michele G. Evans, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12051 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311; NRC-2016-0102] PSEG Nuclear LLC; Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and 75, issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the licensee) for operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed amendments would extend the implementation period for Salem, Unit No. 1, License Amendment No. 311, and Salem, Unit No. 2, License Amendment No. 292, from July 5, 2016 (120 days from the March 7, 2016, date of issuance of the amendments), to prior to Mode 6 entry for the Salem, Unit No. 1, fall 2017 (1R25) outage and prior to Mode 6 entry for the Salem, Unit No. 2, spring 2017 (2R22) outage to align with the outages for the replacement of the source range and intermediate range detectors.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by June 22, 2016. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0102. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J. Wengert, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4037, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0102 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0102.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0102 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and 75, issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC for operation of Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Salem County, New Jersey.

    The proposed amendments would extend the implementation period for Salem, Unit No. 1, License Amendment No. 311, and Salem, Unit No. 2, License Amendment No. 292, from July 5, 2016 (120 days from March 7, 2016, date of issuance of the amendments), to prior to Mode 6 entry for the Salem, Unit No. 1, fall 2017 (1R25) outage and prior to Mode 6 entry for the Salem, Unit No. 2, spring 2017 (2R22) outage to align with the outages for the replacement of the source range and intermediate range detectors.

    Before any issuance of the proposed license amendments, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations.

    The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment implementation schedule extension is administrative in nature and does not require any modifications to or change in operation of plant systems or components. The extension of the amendment implementation period does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis (UFSAR). Current Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.2 requirements will continue to ensure the plant is operated consistent with the UFSAR accident analysis for a boron dilution event.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment implementation schedule extension is administrative in nature. The extension of the amendment implementation does not require any physical plant modifications, does not alter any plant systems or components, and does not change the operation of the plant. Current TS 3.9.2 requirements will continue to ensure the plant is operated consistent with the UFSAR accident analysis for a boron dilution event.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their intended functions. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and the containment. The proposed TS change is administrative in nature and does not affect any of these barriers. Current TS 3.9.2 requirements will continue to ensure the plant is operated consistent with the UFSAR accident analysis for a boron dilution event.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a no significant hazards consideration.

    The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendments before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating licenses or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendments under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.

    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendments. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendments unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 22, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by July 22, 2016.

    IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated May 10, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16131A555).

    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.

    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of May 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Andrew Hon, Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12054 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on June 8, 2016, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Wednesday, June 8, 2016—12:00 p.m. Until 1:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846).

    Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After regist