Federal Register Vol. 82, No.10,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 10 (January 17, 2017)

Page Range4769-5329
FR Document

82_FR_10
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 5325 - Exclusions From the Federal Labor-Management Relations ProgramPDF
82 FR 5323 - Designating the World Organisation for Animal Health as a Public International Organization Entitled To Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and ImmunitiesPDF
82 FR 5321 - Amending Executive Order 11016 To Update Eligibility Criteria for Award of the Purple HeartPDF
82 FR 4925 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 4880 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 4866 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
82 FR 4864 - Denial of Reconsideration and Administrative Stay of the Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Compliance Times for Electric Utility Generating UnitsPDF
82 FR 4867 - California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Amendments to On-Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicle In-Use Compliance Program, Amendments to 2007 and Subsequent Model Year On-Highway Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, and Amendments to Truck Requirements; Notice of DecisionPDF
82 FR 4769 - Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Arriving by AirPDF
82 FR 4902 - Eliminating Exception To Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Encountered in the United States or Arriving by SeaPDF
82 FR 4915 - Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian AffairsPDF
82 FR 4926 - Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
82 FR 4925 - Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an AcceleratorPDF
82 FR 4771 - Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Arriving by AirPDF
82 FR 4842 - Order Relating To Berty TylooPDF
82 FR 4923 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc.PDF
82 FR 4856 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 4877 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 4874 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 4846 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final ResultsPDF
82 FR 4889 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy Annual Program Performance Report and Statement of Goals and PrioritiesPDF
82 FR 4888 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance ReportPDF
82 FR 4913 - Order of Succession for the Office of Strategic Planning and ManagementPDF
82 FR 4963 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 4959 - Buy America Handbook-Conducting Pre-Award and Post-Delivery Audits for Rolling Stock ProcurementsPDF
82 FR 4915 - Land Acquisitions; Craig Tribal Association, Craig, AlaskaPDF
82 FR 4841 - Foreign-Trade Zone 124-Gramercy, Louisiana, Application for Reorganization, (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
82 FR 4848 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Final Negative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
82 FR 4863 - Termination of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
82 FR 4842 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 277-Western Maricopa County, Arizona Notification of Proposed Production Activity; IRIS USA, Inc. (Plastic Household Storage/Organizational Containers), Surprise, ArizonaPDF
82 FR 4921 - Off-road Vehicle Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona and UtahPDF
82 FR 4864 - Nuclear Energy Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 4887 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 4862 - Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
82 FR 4887 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 4957 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application to Determination Returning Resident StatusPDF
82 FR 4892 - Compliance Policy for Required Warning Statements on Small-Packaged Cigars; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 4900 - Delay of Effective Date for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Becoming the Sole CBP-Authorized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System for Processing Electronic Drawback and Duty Deferral Entry and Entry Summary FilingsPDF
82 FR 4879 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 4874 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 4873 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 4837 - Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
82 FR 4875 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 4883 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 4793 - Sudanese Sanctions RegulationsPDF
82 FR 4850 - Ammonium Sulfate From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
82 FR 4883 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
82 FR 4880 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
82 FR 4901 - Delayed Effective Date for Modifications of the National Customs Automation Program Tests Regarding Reconciliation, Post-Summary Corrections, and Periodic Monthly StatementsPDF
82 FR 4781 - Revisions to Sudan Licensing PolicyPDF
82 FR 4920 - Public Land Order No. 7860; Partial Revocation of a Secretarial Order and a Bureau of Reclamation Order; MontanaPDF
82 FR 4885 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 4838 - Announcement of Application Deadlines and Requirements for Section 313A Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Electrification or Telephone Purposes Loan Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017PDF
82 FR 4863 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 4965 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection ActivitiesPDF
82 FR 4844 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission of New Shipper Review; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 4853 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 4852 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 4965 - Solicitation of Proposals for Designation of Beyond Traffic Innovation CentersPDF
82 FR 4938 - Category 3 Source Security and Accountability; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 4896 - Public Hearing: Strategic Partnerships To Enhance the Safety of Imported Foods: Capacity Building, Risk-Based Decisionmaking, Recognition of Commodity Food Control Programs, and Systems Recognition; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 4894 - Referencing Approved Drug Products in Abbreviated New Drug Application Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 4803 - Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods: Revised Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 4861 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 4861 - Multistakeholder Process on Internet of Things Security Upgradability and PatchingPDF
82 FR 4859 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Sea Scallops Amendment 10 Data CollectionPDF
82 FR 4884 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 4957 - Release of Waybill DataPDF
82 FR 4864 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for LicensingPDF
82 FR 4863 - Meeting of the Ocean Research Advisory PanelPDF
82 FR 4855 - Endangered Species; File No. 19508PDF
82 FR 4958 - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Hillsborough County, FloridaPDF
82 FR 4860 - Marine Mammals; File Nos. 19703 and 20993PDF
82 FR 4924 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Injury or Occupational Disease and Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's DeathPDF
82 FR 4858 - Marine Mammals; File No. 20043PDF
82 FR 4859 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and HearingsPDF
82 FR 4842 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott ViolationsPDF
82 FR 4967 - Loan Guaranty: Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology Grant ProgramPDF
82 FR 4890 - Comparative Analyses and Related Comparative Use Human Factors Studies for a Drug-Device Combination Product Submitted in an Abbreviated New Drug Application; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 4923 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center-Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS)PDF
82 FR 4964 - Proposed General Directive 17-1; Stop Signal Overruns on Rail Fixed Guideway Public Transportation SystemsPDF
82 FR 4899 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; National Hospital Organ Donation Campaign's Activity ScorecardPDF
82 FR 4856 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
82 FR 4938 - National Nanotechnology Initiative MeetingsPDF
82 FR 4902 - National Infrastructure Advisory CouncilPDF
82 FR 4922 - Certain Industrial Control System Software, Systems Using Same and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on a Settlement Agreement; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
82 FR 4947 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Reduce the All-Inclusive Annual Listing Fee for Limited Partnerships Listed on NasdaqPDF
82 FR 4941 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Fee Schedule of the Exchange's Options Platform To Adopt Fees for its Recently Adopted Bats Auction MechanismPDF
82 FR 4956 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules for an Open-Outcry Trading FloorPDF
82 FR 4950 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSEArca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to a Change to the Underlying Index for the PowerShares Build America Bond PortfolioPDF
82 FR 4954 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Fees To Adopt a New Cross-Asset Step-Up TierPDF
82 FR 4938 - Brown Advisory LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 4893 - Interpretation of and Compliance Policy for Certain Label Requirement; Applicability of Certain Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Requirements to Vape Shops; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 4956 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Enlightened Princesses: Caroline, Augusta, Charlotte, and the Shaping of the Modern World” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 4841 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Delaware Advisory Committee; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 4880 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10359-Community Central Bank, Mount Clemens, MichiganPDF
82 FR 4967 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13224PDF
82 FR 4855 - Visiting Committee on Advanced TechnologyPDF
82 FR 4914 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
82 FR 4957 - Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use AssurancePDF
82 FR 4956 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Alexei Jawlensky” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 4805 - Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking WaterPDF
82 FR 4783 - Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant ProgramPDF
82 FR 4911 - Waiver of Requirements for the State of New York: CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants for Recovery of Lower ManhattanPDF
82 FR 4796 - Civil Monetary Penalties-2017 AdjustmentPDF
82 FR 4798 - Importation of Hass Avocados From ColombiaPDF
82 FR 4800 - Donations of Technology and Support Services To Enforce Intellectual Property RightsPDF
82 FR 5238 - International Entrepreneur RulePDF
82 FR 4794 - Security Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone-North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit MIPDF
82 FR 4798 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Atlantic City, NJPDF
82 FR 4795 - Repayment by VA of Educational Loans for Certain Psychiatrists; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 4778 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 4825 - Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control ActPDF
82 FR 4974 - Medicare Program: Changes to the Medicare Claims and Entitlement, Medicare Advantage Organization Determination, and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Determination Appeals ProceduresPDF
82 FR 4773 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 4775 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 4905 - Extension of the Designation of Somalia for Temporary Protected StatusPDF
82 FR 5182 - Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches To Address Ozone and Fine Particulate MatterPDF
82 FR 5292 - Unified Registration System; Suspension of EffectivenessPDF
82 FR 5142 - Revisions to National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions From Operating Mill TailingsPDF

Issue

82 10 Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Imports: Hass Avocados From Colombia, 4798 2017-00672 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: UHD Alliance, Inc., 4923 2017-00892 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4884-4886 2017-00815 2017-00833 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Changes to Medicare Claims and Entitlement, Medicare Advantage Organization Determination, and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Determination Appeals Procedures, 4974-5140 2016-32058 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4887-4888 2017-00860 2017-00863 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Delaware Advisory Committee; Correction, 4841 2017-00768 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Security Zones: Annual Events in Captain of the Port Detroit Zone--North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI, 4794-4795 2017-00464 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Protection and Advocacy Annual Program Performance Report and Statement of Goals and Priorities, 4889-4890 2017-00880 Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury Program Performance Report, 4888-4889 2017-00879 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4863 2017-00829 Charter Amendments, Establishments or Renewals: Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees, 4862-4863 2017-00862 Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees; Termination, 4863 2017-00868
Energy Department Energy Department NOTICES Meetings: Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, 4864 2017-00865 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter, 5182-5235 2016-31747 National Emissions Standards: Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tailings, 5142-5180 2016-31425 PROPOSED RULES Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation under Toxic Substances Control Act, 4825-4837 2017-00051 Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water, 4805-4825 2017-00743 NOTICES California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards: Amendments to On-Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicle In-Use Compliance Program, 2007 and Subsequent Model Year On-Highway Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Truck Requirements, 4867-4873 2017-00940 Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Compliance Times for Electric Utility Generating Units: Denial of Reconsideration and Administrative Stay, 4864-4866 2017-00941 Proposed Consent Decrees under Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 4866-4867 2017-00942 Executive Office Executive Office for Immigration Review RULES Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Arriving by Air, 4771-4773 2017-00902 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 4773-4775 2016-31961 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 4775-4781 2016-31959 2017-00115 PROPOSED RULES Class E Airspace; Amendments: Atlantic City, NJ, 4798-4800 2017-00302 NOTICES Waivers for Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance: Chicago Midway International Airport, Chicago, IL, 4957-4958 2017-00753 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 4837 2017-00848 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4873-4880 2017-00847 2017-00849 2017-00850 2017-00851 2017-00883 2017-00884 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: 10359—Community Central Bank Mount Clemens, MI, 4880 2017-00767 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 4880 2017-00967 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Tampa Interstate System; Hillsborough County, FL, 4958-4959 2017-00810 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Unified Registration System; Suspension of Effectiveness, 5292-5318 2016-31706 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4880-4884 2017-00841 2017-00842 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 4883 2017-00846 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4963-4964 2017-00874 Buy America Handbook: Conducting Pre-Award and Post-Delivery Audits for Rolling Stock Procurements, 4959-4963 2017-00873 General Directives: 17-1: Stop Signal Overruns on Rail Fixed Guideway Public Transportation Systems, 4964-4965 2017-00793 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Permit Applications: Endangered Species, 4914-4915 2017-00755 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Guidance: Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods, 4803-4805 2017-00819 NOTICES Guidance: Comparative Analyses and Related Comparative Use Human Factors Studies for Drug-Device Combination Product Submitted in Abbreviated New Drug Application, 4890-4892 2017-00795 Compliance Policy for Required Warning Statements on Small-Packaged Cigars, 4892-4893 2017-00855 Interpretation of and Compliance Policy for Certain Label Requirement; Applicability of Certain Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Requirements to Vape Shops, 4893-4894 2017-00773 Referencing Approved Drug Products in Abbreviated New Drug Application Submissions, 4894-4896 2017-00820 Meetings: Strategic Partnerships to Enhance Safety of Imported Foods: Capacity Building, Risk-Based Decisionmaking, Recognition of Commodity Food Control Programs, and Systems Recognition, 4896-4899 2017-00821 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office RULES Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 4793-4794 2017-00844 NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 4967 2017-00761 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: IRIS USA, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 277, Western Maricopa County, AZ, 4842 2017-00867 Reorganizations under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 124, Gramercy, LA, 4841-4842 2017-00870 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Hospital Organ Donation Campaign's Activity Scorecard, 4899-4900 2017-00792 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

RULES Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Arriving by Air, 4769-4771 2017-00915 International Entrepreneur Rule, 5238-5289 2017-00481 NOTICES Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Encountered in United States or Arriving by Sea, 4902-4905 2017-00914 Meetings: National Infrastructure Advisory Council, 4902 2017-00789
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Grant Program: Waiver of Requirements for State of New York for Recovery of Lower Manhattan, 4911-4913 2017-00710 Order of Succession for Office of Strategic Planning and Management, 4913 2017-00878 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 4915-4920 2017-00912 Land Acquisitions: Craig Tribal Association, Craig, AK, 4915 2017-00872 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Revisions to Sudan Licensing Policy, 4781-4783 2017-00836 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations, 4842 2017-00798 Orders: Berty Tyloo, 4842-4844 2017-00893 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Ammonium Sulfate from People's Republic of China, 4850-4852 2017-00843 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products from Republic of Korea, 4846-4848 2017-00882 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from People's Republic of China, 4852-4853 2017-00825 Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from People's Republic of China, 4844-4846 2017-00827 Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from People's Republic of China; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd., 4853-4855 2017-00826 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India, 4848-4850 2017-00869 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Industrial Control System Software, Systems Using Same and Components Thereof, 4922-4923 2017-00787 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Executive Office for Immigration Review

RULES Formula Grant Program: Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 4783-4793 2017-00740 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center-Trafficking Information Management System, 4923-4924 2017-00794
Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Injury or Occupational Disease; Notice of Law Enforcement Officer's Death, 4924-4925 2017-00806 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Public Land Orders: Partial Revocation of Withdrawal, Lonesome Lake Reservoir, MT, 4920-4921 2017-00835 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 4925 2017-01015 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology; Correction, 4855 2017-00756 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Atlantic Sea Scallops Amendment 10, 4859-4860 2017-00816 Endangered Species Endangered Species; File No. 19508, 4855-4856 2017-00811 Exempted Fishing Permits; Applications, 4856-4858 2017-00791 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4861 2017-00818 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 4856 2017-00887 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 4859 2017-00801 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 20043, 4858-4859 2017-00802 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 19703 and 20993, 4860-4861 2017-00807 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Off-road Vehicle Management Plan, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona and Utah, 4921-4922 2017-00866 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: Multistakeholder Process on Internet of Things Security Upgradability and Patching, 4861-4862 2017-00817 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 4864 2017-00813 Meetings: Ocean Research Advisory Panel, 4863-4864 2017-00812 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 4926-4938 2017-00909 Category 3 Source Security and Accountability; Correction, 4938 2017-00822 Guidance: Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using Accelerator, 4925-4926 2017-00907 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Materials, 4965 2017-00828 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Decorations, Medals, Awards: Purple Heart Eligibility Criteria; Amendment to Executive Order 11016 To Update (EO 13758), 5319-5322 2017-01164 Government Agencies and Employees: Federal Labor-Management Relations Program; Exclusions (EO 13760), 5325-5329 2017-01169 World Organisation for Animal Health; Designating as a Public International Organization Entitled To Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities (EO 13759), 5323-5324 2017-01168 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Requests for Applications: Deadlines and Requirements for Section 313A Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Electrification or Telephone Purposes Loan Program for Fiscal Year 2017, 4838-4841 2017-00831 Science Technology Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES Meetings: National Nanotechnology Initiative, 4938 2017-00790 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Brown Advisory, LLC, 4938-4941 2017-00778 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 4954-4956 2017-00779 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 4941-4947 2017-00782 BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 4956 2017-00781 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 4947-4950 2017-00783 NYSE Arca, Inc., 4950-4953 2017-00780 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application to Determination Returning Resident Status, 4957 2017-00856 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Alexei Jawlensky Exhibition, 4956 2017-00749 Enlightened Princesses: Caroline, Augusta, Charlotte, and the Shaping of the Modern World, 4956-4957 2017-00769 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board RULES Civil Monetary Penalties—2017 Adjustment, 4796-4797 2017-00690 NOTICES Release of Waybill Data, 4957 2017-00814 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Solicitation of Proposals for Designation of Beyond Traffic Innovation Centers, 4965-4967 2017-00824
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

PROPOSED RULES Donations of Technology and Support Services to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights, 4800-4803 2017-00653
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Extension of the Designation of Somalia for Temporary Protected Status, 4905-4911 2016-31861 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection PROPOSED RULES Donations of Technology and Support Services to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights, 4800-4803 2017-00653 NOTICES Automated Commercial Environments: Sole CBP-Authorized Electronic Data Interchange System for Processing Electronic Drawback and Duty Deferral Entry and Entry Summary Filings, 4900-4901 2017-00852 National Customs Automation Program Tests: Reconciliation, Post-Summary Corrections, and Periodic Monthly Statements, 4901 2017-00837 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Repayment by VA of Educational Loans for Certain Psychiatrists; Correction, 4795-4796 2017-00232 NOTICES Loan Guarantees: Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology Grant Program, 4967-4971 2017-00797 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 4974-5140 2016-32058 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 5142-5180 2016-31425 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency, 5182-5235 2016-31747 Part V Homeland Security Department, 5238-5289 2017-00481 Part VI Transportation Department, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 5292-5318 2016-31706 Part VII Presidential Documents, 5319-5329 2017-01164 2017-01169 2017-01168 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 electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

82 10 Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 8 CFR Part 235 [DHS Docket No. DHS-2017-0003] RIN 1601-AA81 Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Arriving by Air AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This final rule revises Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to eliminate the categorical exception from expedited removal proceedings for Cuban nationals who arrive in the United States at a port of entry by aircraft. As a result of these changes, Cuban nationals who arrive in the United States at a port of entry by aircraft will be subject to expedited removal proceedings commensurate with nationals of other countries.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 13, 2017. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this final rule on or before March 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1601-AA81 and DHS Docket Number DHS-2017-0003, by any one of the following methods:

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments.

Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Please submit all written comments (including and CD-ROM submissions) to Amanda Baran, Principal Director for Immigration Policy, DHS, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0445, Washington, DC 20528.

Please submit your comments by only one method. Comments received by means other than those listed above or received after the comment period has closed will not be reviewed. All comments received will be posted without change on http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is the Federal e-rulemaking portal and comments posted there are available and accessible to the public. Commenters should not include personal information such as Social Security Numbers, personal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses in their comments as such information will become viewable by the public on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. It is the commenter's responsibility to safeguard his or her information. Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov will not include the commenter's email address unless the commenter chooses to include that information as part of his or her comment.

Postal delivery in Washington, DC, may be delayed due to security concerns. Therefore, DHS encourages the public to submit comments through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you need assistance to review the comments, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amanda Baran, Principal Director for Immigration Policy, 202-282-8805, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 302 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, amended section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), to authorize what are known as “expedited removal proceedings.” Specifically, section 235(b) was amended to authorize the Attorney General (now the Secretary of Homeland Security 1 ) to remove, without a hearing before an immigration judge, aliens arriving in the United States who are inadmissible under sections 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C) and 1182(a)(7), for lack of valid documents necessary for admission or entry or for procuring or seeking to procure a visa, other immigration-related documentation, admission to the United States, or other immigration benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact.

1 Under section 1517 of title XV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the INA describing functions that were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice (DOJ) official to DHS by the HSA “shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary” of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. 557 (2003) (codifying HSA, tit. XV, sec. 1517); 6 U.S.C. 542 note; 8 U.S.C. 1551 note.

Expedited removal proceedings under section 235(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), may be applied to two categories of aliens. First, expedited removal proceedings may be used for aliens who are “arriving in the United States.” Section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). Second, the Secretary, in his or her sole and unreviewable discretion, may designate certain other aliens to whom the expedited removal provisions may be applied. Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii); see 8 CFR 235.3(b)(1)(ii).

When it created the expedited removal process, Congress also created a limited exception for certain aliens who arrived at a U.S. port of entry by aircraft. Under section 235(b)(1)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(F), expedited removal “shall not apply to an alien who is a native or citizen of a country in the Western Hemisphere with whose government the United States does not have full diplomatic relations and who arrives by aircraft at a port of entry.” For many years, this exception applied to Cuban nationals due to the lack of full diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. DHS regulations implementing section 235(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), thus expressly stated that the expedited removal provisions apply to “[a]rriving aliens, as defined in 8 CFR 1.2, except for citizens of Cuba arriving at a United States port-of-entry by aircraft.” 8 CFR 235.3(b)(1)(i); see also 8 CFR 1235.3(b)(1)(i) (parallel Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations stating that the expedited removal provisions apply to “[a]rriving aliens, as defined in [8 CFR 1001.1(q)], except for citizens of Cuba arriving at a United States port-of-entry by aircraft”).2

2 DOJ initially promulgated 8 CFR 235.3(b)(1)(i) as an exercise of the functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. See 62 FR 10312 (Mar. 6, 1997). Following enactment of the HSA, 8 CFR 235.3(b)(1)(i) was transferred to DHS, and effectively duplicated in parallel DOJ regulations at 8 CFR 1235.3(b)(1)(i). See 68 FR 10349 (Mar. 5, 2003). DOJ is revising its parallel regulation by separate rulemaking in this issue of the Federal Register.

Since that regulation was promulgated, significant changes in the relationship between the United States and Cuba have occurred. In December 2014, President Obama announced a historic opening between the United States and Cuba, as well as an approach for reestablishing diplomatic relations and adjusting regulations to facilitate greater travel, commerce, people-to-people ties, and the free flow of information to, from, and within Cuba. On July 20, 2015, the United States and Cuba formally reestablished full diplomatic relations and opened embassies in each other's countries. In the time following the reestablishment of full diplomatic relations, the United States and Cuba have taken concrete steps towards enhancing security, building bridges between our peoples, and promoting economic prosperity for citizens of both countries. And recent migration discussions have yielded important changes that will dramatically affect travel and migration between our two countries. Among other things, Cuba has agreed to accept and facilitate the repatriation of its nationals who are ordered removed from the United States. This arrangement and other changes remain the focus of ongoing diplomatic discussions between the two countries. DHS, in consultation with the Department of State, has determined that the limitation at section 235(b)(1)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(F) no longer applies with respect to Cuba.

Moreover, DHS has recently seen a significant increase in attempts by Cuban nationals to illegally enter the United States. Many of those Cuban nationals have taken a dangerous journey through Central America and Mexico; others have taken to the high seas in the dangerous attempt to cross the Straits of Florida. DHS believes this increase in attempted migration has been driven in part by the perception that there is a limited window before the United States will eliminate favorable immigration policies for Cuban nationals.

The application of the expedited removal authorities to Cuban nationals must reflect these new realities. Accordingly, DHS is eliminating provisions in its regulations that categorically exempt Cuban nationals who arrive at a U.S. port of entry by aircraft from expedited removal proceedings under 8 CFR 235.3. Importantly, the statutory provision categorically barring the use of expedited removal for certain aliens who arrive by air no longer applies to Cuban nationals, as the United States and Cuba have reestablished full diplomatic relations. Moreover, previous U.S. policy justifications for exempting Cuban nationals from expedited removal—including Cuba's general refusal to accept the repatriation of its nationals—are no longer valid in many respects. Finally, a categorical exception severely impairs the Government's ability to remove unauthorized aliens encountered within the United States. For these reasons, DHS, in consultation with the Department of State, has determined that a categorical exception from expedited removal for Cuban nationals is no longer in the interests of the United States. Accordingly, as a result of this final rule, Cuban nationals will be subject to expedited removal proceedings under section 235(b) of the INA and 8 CFR 235.3 like nationals of other countries. For the same reasons, DHS is also publishing a notice in this issue of the Federal Register to remove the parallel exceptions for expedited removal of Cuban nationals who arrive by sea or who are encountered by an immigration officer within 100 air miles of the U.S. border.

II. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act

The implementation of this rule as a final rule, with provisions for post-promulgation public comments, is based on the good cause exception found in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). Delaying the implementation of the change announced in this rule to allow pre-promulgation notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Congress explicitly authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate categories of aliens to whom expedited removal proceedings may be applied, and made clear that “[s]uch designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Secretary and may be modified at any time.” Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I). And this rule is necessary to remove quickly from the United States certain Cuban nationals who arrive by air at U.S. ports of entry. The ability to detain such aliens while admissibility and identity are determined and protection claims are adjudicated, as well as to quickly remove those without protection claims or claims to lawful status, is a necessity for national security and public safety.

Pre-promulgation notice and comment would undermine these interests, while endangering human life and having a potential destabilizing effect in the region. Specifically, DHS is concerned that publication of the rule as a proposed rule, which would signal a significant change in policy while permitting continuation of the exception for Cuban nationals, could lead to a surge in migration of Cuban nationals seeking to travel to and enter the United States during the period between the publication of a proposed and a final rule. Such a surge would threaten national security and public safety by diverting valuable Government resources from counterterrorism and homeland security responsibilities. A surge could also have a destabilizing effect on the region, thus weakening the security of the United States and threatening its international relations. Additionally, a surge could result in significant loss of human life. Accordingly, DHS finds that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to accept pre-promulgation comments on this rule. For the same reasons, DHS also finds good cause to issue this rule without a 30-day delayed effective date requirement of the APA, see 5 U.S.C. 553(d).3

3 In addition, in light of the lack of pre-publication notice and comment and a delayed effective date for the related notice that DHS has published in this issue of the Federal Register, a delay in the effective date of this regulation would be incongruous and unnecessary.

In addition, the change implemented by this rule is part of a major foreign policy initiative announced by the President, and is central to ongoing diplomatic discussions between the United States and Cuba with respect to travel and migration between the two countries. DHS, in consultation with the Department of State, has determined that eliminating the exception from expedited removal proceedings for Cuban nationals involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), and is also exempt from the notice and comment and 30-day delayed effective date requirements of the APA on that basis. DHS is nevertheless providing the opportunity for the public to comment.

B. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866

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.

The Office of Management and Budget has not designated this rule as a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). Because this final rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Amendments List of Subjects for 8 CFR Part 235

Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 235 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

8 CFR CHAPTER I PART 235—INSPECTION OF PERSONS APPLYING FOR ADMISSION 1. The authority citation for part 235 continues to read: Authority:

8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103, 1183, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 278), 1201, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1365b, 1379, 1731-32; Title VII of Public Law 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); Pub. L. 112-54.

2. Revise § 235.3(b)(1)(i) to read as follows:
§ 235.3 Inadmissible aliens and expedited removal.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Arriving aliens, as defined in 8 CFR 1.2;

Signed: at Washington, DC, this 11th of January 2017. Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-00915 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Part 1235 [AG Order No. 3817-2017; EOIR Docket No. 401] RIN 1125-AA80 Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Arriving by Air AGENCY:

Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This final rule revises Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) regulations to eliminate the categorical exception from expedited removal proceedings for Cuban nationals who arrive in the United States at a port of entry by aircraft. This final rule conforms with a parallel Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulation. As a result of these changes, Cuban nationals who arrive in the United States at a port of entry by aircraft will be subject to expedited removal proceedings commensurate with nationals of other countries.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 13, 2017. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this final rule on or before March 20, 2017. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.

ADDRESSES:

Please submit written comments to Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia 22041. To ensure proper handling, please reference RIN No. 1125-AA80 or EOIR Docket No. 401 on your correspondence. You may submit comments electronically or view an electronic version of this proposed rule at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone (703) 605-1744 (not a toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this rule. EOIR also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. To provide the most assistance to EOIR, comments should explain the reason for any recommended change, and should include data, information, or authority that supports such recommended change.

All comments submitted for this rulemaking should include the agency name and RIN 1125-AA80 or EOIR Docket No. 401. Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and will be made available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov., including personally identifiable information (such as a person's name, address, or any other data that might personally identify that individual) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

If you want to submit personally identifiable information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on www.regulations.gov.

Personally identifiable information and confidential business information provided as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. To inspect the agency's public docket file in person, you must make an appointment with agency counsel. Please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph above for agency counsel's contact information.

II. Background

This rule conforms to the rule published by DHS in this issue of the Federal Register that revises 8 CFR 235.3(b)(1)(i). This rule revises the parallel Department of Justice (DOJ) regulation, 8 CFR 1235.3(b)(1)(i), which states that the expedited removal provisions apply to “[a]rriving aliens, as defined in [8 CFR 1001.1(q)], except for citizens of Cuba arriving at a United States port-of-entry by aircraft”.1 Both the DHS rule and this rule eliminate the provisions in the Departments' respective regulations that categorically exempt Cuban nationals who arrive at a U.S. port of entry by aircraft from expedited removal proceedings. As a result of these changes, Cuban nationals who arrive in the United States at a port of entry by aircraft will be subject to expedited removal proceedings commensurate with nationals of other countries.

1 DOJ initially promulgated 8 CFR 235.3(b)(1)(i) as an exercise of the functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. See 62 FR 10312 (Mar. 6, 1997). Following enactment of the HSA, 8 CFR 235.3(b)(1)(i) was transferred to DHS, and effectively duplicated in parallel DOJ regulations at 8 CFR 1235.3(b)(1)(i). See 68 FR 10349 (Mar. 5, 2003).

III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act

The implementation of this rule as a final rule, with provisions for post-promulgation public comments, is based on the good cause exception found in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). Delaying the implementation of the change announced in this rule to allow pre-promulgation notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate categories of aliens to whom expedited removal proceedings may be applied, and makes clear that “[s]uch designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Secretary and may be modified at any time.” 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I). This conforming rule is necessary to conform to the DHS rulemaking, which will allow DHS to remove quickly from the United States certain Cuban nationals who arrive by air at U.S. ports of entry. The ability to detain such aliens while admissibility and identity are determined and protection claims are adjudicated, as well as to quickly remove those without protection claims or claims to lawful status, is a necessity for national security and public safety.

Pre-promulgation notice and comment would undermine these interests, while endangering human life and having a potential destabilizing effect in the region. Specifically, the Department is concerned that publication of the rule as a proposed rule, which would signal a significant change in policy while permitting continuation of the exception for Cuban nationals, could lead to a surge in migration of Cuban nationals seeking to travel to and enter the United States during the period between the publication of a proposed and a final rule. Such a surge would threaten national security and public safety by diverting valuable Government resources from counterterrorism and homeland security responsibilities. A surge could also have a destabilizing effect on the region, thus weakening the security of the United States and threatening its international relations. Additionally, a surge could result in significant loss of human life.

Accordingly, DOJ finds that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to accept pre-promulgation comments on this rule. For the same reasons, DOJ also finds good cause to issue this rule without a 30-day delayed effective date requirement of the APA, see 5 U.S.C. 553(d).2

2 In addition, in light of the lack of pre-publication notice-and-comment and a delayed effective date for the related notice that DHS has published in this issue of the Federal Register, a delay in the effective date of this regulation would be incongruous and unnecessary.

In addition, the change implemented by this rule is part of a major foreign policy initiative announced by the President, and is central to ongoing diplomatic discussions between the United States and Cuba with respect to travel and migration between the two countries. DOJ, in consultation with the Department of State, has determined that eliminating the exception from expedited removal proceedings for Cuban nationals involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), and is also exempt from the notice and comment and 30-day delayed effective date requirements of the APA on that basis. DOJ is nevertheless providing the opportunity for the public to provide comments.

B. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866

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.

The Office of Management and Budget has not designated this rule as a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). Because this final rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

D. 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.

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. See 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. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 1235

Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, part 1235 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 1235—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW 1. The authority citation for part 1235 continues to read: Authority:

8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103, 1183, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 278), 1201, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1379, 1731-32; Title VII of Public Law 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458).

2. Revise § 1235.3(b)(1)(i) to read as follows:
§ 1235.3 Inadmissible aliens and expedited removal.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Arriving aliens, as defined in § 1001.1(q) of this chapter;

Dated: January 11, 2017. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2017-00902 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9110; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-196-AD; Amendment 39-18773; AD 2017-01-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-232, A321-211, A321-213, and A321-231 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of certain tie rod assemblies installed on the hinged fairing assembly of the main landing gear (MLG) with no cadmium plating on the rod end threads. This AD requires inspection and replacement of certain tie rod assemblies installed on the hinged fairing assembly of the MLG. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective February 21, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9110.

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-2016-9110; 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:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; 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 Airbus Model A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-232, A321-211, A321-213, and A321-231 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2016 (81 FR 64083).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0234, dated December 8, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-232, A321-211, A321-213, and A321-231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

A production quality issue was identified concerning tie rod assemblies, having Part Number (P/N) starting with D52840212000 or D52840212002, which are installed on the main landing gear (MLG) hinged fairing assembly. This quality issue affects the cadmium plating surface treatment which was inadvertently omitted from the rod end threads of the assembly. The absence of cadmium plating reduces the corrosion protection scheme.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to galvanic corrosion of the tie rod end threads, possibly resulting in rod end failure, loss of a MLG door, and consequent injury to persons on ground.

To address this unsafe condition, Airbus identified the affected [manufacturer serial number] MSN and issued [service bulletin] SB A320-52-1167 to provide inspection instructions.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the affected MLG hinged fairing tie rod assemblies [for the presence of cadmium plating], and, depending on findings, replacement of the affected tie rod assembly.

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-2016-9110.

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.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-52-1167, dated August 6, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for the presence of cadmium plating on tie rod assemblies having certain part numbers, and procedures for replacement of tie rod assemblies with no cadmium plating on the rod end threads. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $3,400

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement 13 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,105 Not available $1,105

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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): 2017-01-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-18773; Docket No. FAA-2016-9110; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-196-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 21, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-232, A321-211, A321-213, and A321-231 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1167, dated August 6, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of certain tie rod assemblies installed on the hinged fairing assembly of the main landing gear (MLG) with no cadmium plating on the rod end threads. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct the absence of cadmium plating on the rod end threads of the tie rod assemblies. The absence of cadmium plating could lead to galvanic corrosion of the tie rod end threads, resulting in rod end failure, loss of a MLG door, and consequent damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 80 months after the airplane's first flight, do a detailed inspection of each tie rod assembly having a part number (P/N) D52840212000 or D52840212002 at the MLG hinged fairing for the presence of cadmium plating (gold colored threads), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1167, dated August 6, 2015. If during the inspection any tie rod assembly is found that does not have cadmium plating, before further flight, replace the tie rod assembly with a serviceable part having the same part number and cadmium plating, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1167, dated August 6, 2015.

    (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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0234, dated December 8, 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-2016-9110.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1167, dated August 6, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 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.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2016. Thomas Groves, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-31961 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7419; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-189-AD; Amendment 39-18769; AD 2017-01-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that some inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators may have been assembled with an incorrect no-back brake rotor-stator stack sequence during manufacturing. This AD requires inspecting the trailing edge flap rotary actuator, and replacing the rotary actuator or doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective February 21, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7419.

    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-2016-7419; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45070) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report that some inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators may have been assembled with an incorrect no-back brake rotor-stator stack sequence during manufacturing. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the inboard and outboard flap trailing edge rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator. For discrepant rotary actuators, the NPRM proposed to require replacing the rotary actuator, or alternatively, determining the flight cycles on the rotary actuator, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace rotary actuators having incorrect assembly, which could cause accelerated unit wear that will eventually reduce braking performance. This degradation could lead to loss of no-back brake function and reduced controllability of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response. Boeing stated that it supported the NPRM. United Airlines (UAL) stated that it supported the compliance time in the NPRM.

    Request for the Manufacturer To Re-Evaluate Its Warranty Policy

    UAL requested that Boeing re-evaluate its warranty policy. UAL stated that an incorrect stack sequence occurred during the manufacturing process and that operators should not be penalized for having to perform the test and replacement of the rotary actuators.

    We partially agree with the request. We agree that this is a manufacturing issue. However, we have not revised this final rule in this regard because we do not regulate Boeing's warranty policy.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the inboard and outboard flap rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator, and procedures for replacing the rotary actuator, or determining the flight cycles on the rotary actuator and doing applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $425

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Check to determine flight cycles on the rotary actuator 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 Functional test 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 Replacement 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-01-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18769; Docket No. FAA-2016-7419; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-189-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 21, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that some inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators may have been assembled with an incorrect no-back brake rotor-stator stack sequence during manufacturing. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace rotary actuators having incorrect assembly, which could cause accelerated unit wear that will eventually reduce braking performance. This degradation could lead to loss of no-back brake function and reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Other Actions

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection of the inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015. If any discrepant rotary actuator is found, within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015.

    (1) Replace the discrepant rotary actuator.

    (2) Check the maintenance records to determine the flight cycles of each discrepant rotary actuator and, within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

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

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) 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.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 27, 2016. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager,Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-31959 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0797; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-007-AD; Amendment 39-18776; AD 2017-01-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and 767-300F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of malfunctions in the flight deck display units, which resulted in blanking, blurring, or loss of color on the display. This AD requires modification and installation of components in the main equipment center. For certain other airplanes this AD requires modification, replacement, and installation of flight deck air relief system (FDARS) components. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective February 21, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 21, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0797.

    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-2013-0797; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Controls Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and 767-300F series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2016 (81 FR 33612) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2013 (78 FR 58970) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require modification and installation of components in the main equipment center. For certain other airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require modification, replacement, and installation of FDARS components. The NPRM was prompted by reports of malfunctions in the flight deck display units, which resulted in blanking, blurring, or loss of color on the display. The SNPRM proposed to revise the applicability, add certain modifications, and clarify certain requirements. We are issuing this AD to prevent malfunctions of the flight deck display units, which could affect the ability of the flight crew to read the displays for airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the ability of the flight crew to maintain control of the airplane.

    Comments

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

    Support for the SNPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the intent of the SNPRM.

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Specified Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

    We agree with the commenter that STC ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; and Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011 (“SB 767-21-0235, R1”). The service information describes procedures for a relay installation and related wiring changes (which change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic for the cooling system for the flight deck display equipment on freighter airplanes).

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010 (“SB 767-27-0244, R1”). The service information describes procedures for changing (modifying) the 3-way valve control logic and installing a cooling system for the flight deck display equipment.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013 (“ASB 767-21A0245, R2”); and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013 (“ASB 767-21A0247, R1”). The service information describes procedures for changing (modifying) the 3-way valve control logic and main cargo air distribution system (MCADS), and installing an FDARS. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012. The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing duct, installing an FDARS, changing (modifying) the 3-way valve control logic, and installing a new altitude switch and pitot tube.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013. The service information describes procedures for replacing the duct with a new duct; installing an FDARS (including the installation of mounting brackets, ducts, orifice, outlet valve, and screen); and activating the 3-way valve logic (including modification of the associated wiring and related actions).

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995. The service information describes procedures for installing a maintenance data selection system for the engine indication and crew alerting system.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • 3-way valve control logic and MCADS change and FDARS installation (ASB 767-21A0247, R1) 46 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,910 $21,865 $25,775 $1,185,650 (46 airplanes). 3-way valve control logic and MCADS change and FDARS installation (ASB 767-21A0245, R2) 64 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,440 $18,315 $23,755 $47,510 (2 airplanes). 3-way valve logic change and installation of FDARS components (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012) 76 work-hours × $85 per hour = $6,460 $55,663 $62,123 $248,492 (4 airplanes). Change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic change and installation of a flight deck display equipment cooling system (SB 767-27-0244, R1) 33 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,805 $0 $2,805 $8,415 (3 airplanes). Relay installation and related wiring changes (Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or SB 767-21-0235, R1) Up to 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $850 Up to $955 Up to $1,805 Up to $88,445 (49 airplanes). Activation of 3-way valve logic change and installation of FDARS (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013) 51 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,335 $16,338 $20,673 (0 airplanes). Installation of engine indication and crew alerting system maintenance data selection system (Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995) Up to 13 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,105 Up to $3,535 Up to $4,640 Up to $13,920 (3 airplanes).

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-01-09  The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18776; Docket No. FAA-2013-0797; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-007-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 21, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and 767-300F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in the service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD. This AD does not apply to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 (passenger) series airplanes.

    (1) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010 (“SB 767-27-0244, R1”).

    (2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013 (“ASB 767-21A0245, R2”).

    (3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013 (“ASB 767-21A0247, R1”).

    (4) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012.

    (5) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of malfunctions in the flight deck display units, which resulted in blanking, blurring, or loss of color on the display. We are issuing this AD to prevent malfunctions of the flight deck display units, which could affect the ability of the flight crew to read the displays for airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the ability of the flight crew to maintain control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation of Flight Deck Air Relief System (FDARS) and 3-Way Valve Logic Change or Activation

    (1) For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, replace the existing duct with a new duct; install an FDARS (including the installation of mounting brackets, ducts, orifice, outlet valve, and screen); change the 3-way valve logic (including modification of the associated wiring and related actions); and install a new altitude switch and pitot tube; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012.

    (2) For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, replace the duct with a new duct; install an FDARS (including the installation of mounting brackets, ducts, orifice, outlet valve, and screen); and activate the 3-way valve logic (including modification of the associated wiring and related actions); in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.

    (h) Installation of FDARS and a 3-Way Valve Control Logic and Main Cargo Air Distribution System Change

    (1) For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in ASB 767-21A0245, R2: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic and main cargo air distribution system (MCADS), and install an FDARS, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instruction of ASB 767-21A0245, R2, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in ASB 767-21A0247, R1: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic and MCADS, and install an FDARS, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 767-21A0247, R1.

    (i) Installation of a Flight Deck Display Equipment Cooling System and a 3-Way Valve Logic Change

    For Model 767-300 series airplanes that have been converted by Boeing to Model 767-300BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter) airplanes, as identified in SB 767-27-0244, R1: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic and install a flight deck display equipment cooling system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 767-27-0244, R1.

    (j) Exception to Paragraph (h)(1) of this AD

    For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in ASB 767-21A0245, R2: If the 3 way valve control logic change (modification) specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011 (“SB 767-21-0235, R1”); is done prior to or concurrent with the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, operators need to do only the functional test, FDARS installation, and flex duct change, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 767-21A0245, R2. Operators do not need to do the other actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 767-21A0245, R2, if the actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or SB 767-21-0235, R1; are done concurrently. If the functional test fails, before further flight, do corrective actions that are approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (k) Concurrent Requirements

    (1) For Groups 1 and 3 airplanes, as identified in ASB 767-21A0245, R2: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, do the relay installation and related wiring changes specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or SB 767-21-0235, R1.

    (2) For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in ASB 767-21A0247, R1: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, do the relay installation and related wiring changes specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or SB 767-21-0235, R1.

    (3) For Model 767-300 series airplanes that have been converted by Boeing to Model 767-300BCF airplanes, as identified in SB 767-27-0244, R1: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, do all the actions (installation) specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Controls Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011.

    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010.

    (iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013.

    (v) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013.

    (vi) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012.

    (vii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.

    (viii) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 30, 2016. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00115 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 742 [Docket No. 160901810-6810-01] RIN 0694-AH10 Revisions to Sudan Licensing Policy AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule revises the policy of review for applications for licenses to export or reexport to Sudan certain items that are intended to ensure the safety of civil aviation or the safe operation of fixed-wing, commercial passenger aircraft. Such applications will now be reviewed under a general policy of approval rather than a general policy of denial.

    This rule also revises the review policy from a general policy of denial to a general policy of approval for applications for licenses to export or reexport to Sudan certain items for use to inspect, design, construct, operate, improve, maintain, repair, overhaul or refurbish railroads in Sudan. This rule does not create any new license requirements or remove any existing license requirements for exports or reexports to Sudan. BIS is making these licensing policy changes in connection with ongoing U.S.-Sudan bilateral engagement, and with the aim of enhancing the safety of Sudan's civil aviation and improving the country's railroads. This action takes into account the United States' goals to improve regional peace and security.

    This rule also removes two instances of “contract sanctity dates” pertaining to the export and reexport of certain items to Sudan from the EAR that currently serve no practical purpose.

    BIS is taking these actions in coordination with the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which is amending the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Foreign Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Phone: (202) 482-4252.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Pursuant to § 742.10 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), in keeping with Sudan's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, persons must obtain a license to export or reexport to Sudan all aircraft controlled on the Commerce Control List (Supp. No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) (CCL) and to export related parts and components that are controlled on the CCL. Prior to the publication of this rule, the EAR imposed a general policy of denial on license applications for such exports or reexports to all end-users and for all end uses in Sudan. This rule revises the licensing policy to a general policy of approval for parts, components, materials, equipment, and technology that are controlled on the CCL only for anti-terrorism reasons and that are intended to ensure the safety of civil aviation or the safe operation of fixed-wing, commercial passenger aircraft.

    Applications to export or reexport to Sudan complete aircraft and applications to export or reexport to Sudan aircraft-related items that are controlled for anti-terrorism reasons and one or more additional reasons (for example, missile technology reasons) will continue to be reviewed under a general policy of denial to all end users.

    This rule also revises the general policy of denial to a general policy of approval for license applications to export or reexport to Sudan items controlled on the CCL only for anti-terrorism reasons that will be used to inspect, design, construct, operate, improve, maintain, repair, overhaul or refurbish railroads in Sudan.

    With respect to both aircraft related-items and railroad-related items, the general policies of approval set forth in this rule apply only to exports and reexports to Sudan for civil uses by non-sensitive end-users within Sudan. Sensitive end users, who are not eligible for these policies, include Sudan's military, police, and/or intelligence services and persons that are owned by or are part of or are operated or controlled by those services. Additionally, license applications for the export or reexport of items that would substantially benefit such sensitive end users will generally be denied. To implement these policies, this rule revises § 742.10(b)(3) of the EAR, which sets forth exceptions to the general policies of denial that apply to most license applications to export or reexport to Sudan.

    In conjunction with this rule, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 538, to add a new general license that authorizes all transactions prohibited by those regulations and by Executive Orders 13067 and 13412. Under OFAC's new general license, newly-authorized transactions include the processing of transactions involving persons in Sudan; the importation of goods and services from Sudan; the exportation of goods, technology, and services to Sudan; and transactions involving property in which the Government of Sudan has an interest. Persons interested in exporting or reexporting to Sudan goods and technology that are subject to the EAR, including items related to railroads or the safety of civil aviation or safe operation of fixed-wing commercial passenger aircraft, pursuant to OFAC's new general license should consult BIS regarding any licensing obligations they may have under the EAR.

    BIS will continue to evaluate license applications in light of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and any other relevant legal requirements.

    This rule also removes and reserves paragraphs (c)(6)(iii) and (c)(10)(iii) of Supplement No. 2 to part 742, which state licensing policy and contract sanctity dates for aircraft, and cryptographic and cryptologic equipment, respectively. The licensing policies for these commodities are stated in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v) of § 742.10 and need not be repeated in Supplement No. 2. Moreover, as a consequence of this rule, which revises licensing policy for certain aircraft-related items and railroad-related items, the latter category potentially including cryptographic and cryptologic equipment, paragraphs (c)(6)(iii) and (c)(10)(iii)'s statements of a general policy of denial for all end-users in Sudan is no longer accurate. Additionally, the recitation of contract sanctity dates in Supplement No. 2 does not serve a practical purpose. The term “contract sanctity date” draws on section 6(p) of the EAA. That section constrains BIS's ability to limit exports and reexports in performance of contracts entered into prior to the date of imposition of export controls. The references to the contract sanctity dates in the supplement do not limit or otherwise affect the right of any license applicant to assert that the provisions of section 6(p) of the EAA apply to the license application that it is submitting. The identified dates are also long outdated, with March 21, 2003, the most recent contract sanctity date that this rule removes from Supplement No. 2 to part 742.

    Export Administration Act of 1979

    Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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. This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This rule involves a collection of information approved under OMB control number 0694-0088—Simplified Network Application Processing+ System (SNAP+) and the Multipurpose Export License Application, which carries an annual estimated burden of 31,833 hours. BIS believes that this rule will have no material impact on that burden. To the extent that it has any impact, BIS believes that the benefits of this rule justify any additional burden it creates. This rule does not impose any new license requirements; in fact, it creates more favorable license application review policies for exports and reexports to Sudan. These more favorable policies might increase the number of license applications submitted to BIS because applicants might be more optimistic about obtaining approval. However, the benefit to license applicants in the form of greater likelihood of approval justifies any additional burden. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, by email at [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-7285 and to Sheila Quarterman at [email protected]

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS is making these licensing policy changes in connection with ongoing U.S.-Sudan bilateral engagement, and with the aim of enhancing the safety of Sudan's civil aviation and improving its railroads. This decision takes into account our goals to improve regional peace and security. A delay in effective date would undermine progress in that bilateral engagement adversely impacting the U.S. Government's foreign policy goals of improving regional peace and security.

    Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 742

    Exports, Terrorism.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 742 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

    PART 742—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 742 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; Sec. 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential Determination 2003-23, 68 FR 26459, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 320; Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016); Notice of November 8, 2016, 81 FR 79379 (November 10, 2016).

    2. Section 742.10 is amended by: a. Adding a paragraph heading to paragraph (b)(1) introductory text; b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(iv); c. Adding a paragraph heading to paragraph (b)(2); and d. Revising paragraph (b)(3).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 742.10 Anti-terrorism: Sudan.

    (b) * * *

    (1) General policy of denial. * * *

    (iv) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, all aircraft (powered and unpowered), helicopters, engines and related spare parts and components. * * *

    (2) Military end-user and end-use policy. * * *

    (3) Other licensing policies. The licensing policies set forth in this paragraph apply notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.

    (i) Case-by-case review policy. Applications to export or reexport to Sudan will be considered on a case-by-case basis in the four situations described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.

    (A) The transaction involves the reexport to Sudan of items where Sudan was not the intended ultimate destination at the time of original export from the United States, provided that the export from the United States occurred prior to the applicable contract sanctity date.

    (B) The U.S. content of foreign-produced commodities is 20% or less by value.

    (C) The commodities are medical items.

    (D) The items are telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software and technology for civil end use, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure.

    Note to paragraph (b)(3)(i). Applicants seeking approval of their license applications pursuant to this paragraph must include with their applications documentation demonstrating how their proposed transaction is consistent with one or more of the four situations described in this paragraph.

    (ii) General policy of approval. Applications to export or reexport to Sudan the following for civil uses by non-sensitive end-users within Sudan will be reviewed with a general policy of approval.

    (A) Parts, components, materials, equipment, and technology that are controlled on the Commerce Control List (Supp. No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) only for anti-terrorism reasons that are intended to ensure the safety of civil aviation or the safe operation of fixed-wing commercial passenger aircraft.

    (B) Items controlled on the Commerce Control List (Supp. No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) only for anti-terrorism reasons that will be used to inspect, design, construct, operate, improve, maintain, repair, overhaul or refurbish railroads in Sudan.

    Note to paragraph (b)(3)(ii). Applications will generally be denied for exports or reexports that would substantially benefit a sensitive end user. Sensitive end users include Sudan's military, police, and intelligence services and persons that are owned by or are part of or operated or controlled by those services.

    Supplement No. 2 to Part 742 [Amended] 3. In Supplement No. 2 to part 742, remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(6)(iii) and (c)(10)(iii). Dated: January 4, 2017. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00836 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 31 [Docket No.: OJP (OJJDP) 1719] RIN 1121-AA83 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant Program AGENCY:

    Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“OJJDP”) of the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”), publishes this partial final rule to amend portions of the formula grant program (“Formula Grant Program”) regulation to reflect changes in OJJDP policy.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This rule is effective February 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Thompson, Senior Advisor, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at 202-307-5911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OJJDP Formula Grant Program is authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (“JJDPA”). The JJDPA authorizes OJJDP to provide an annual grant to each State to improve its juvenile justice system and to support juvenile delinquency prevention programs. OJJDP published a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 8, 2016, 81 FR 52377, that proposed to revise the entirety of the Formula Grant Program regulation.

    OJJDP is finalizing some, but not all, aspects of the proposed rule here. For several provisions, OJJDP has addressed the comments received and is amending the current Formula Grant Program regulation through this partial final rule. For other provisions included in the proposed rule, OJJDP received voluminous comments that will require additional time for OJJDP to consider them thoughtfully. OJJDP anticipates publishing a final rule in the future addressing the remainder of the proposed changes that are not addressed in this partial final rule.

    I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The JJDPA authorizes annual formula grants to be made to States to improve their juvenile justice systems and to support juvenile delinquency prevention programs.1 See 42 U.S.C. 5631(a). OJJDP promulgates this rule pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted to the OJJDP Administrator (the Administrator) by 42 U.S.C. 5611(b).

    1 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5603(7), “the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.”

    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Partial Final Rule

    This rule amends the Formula Grant Program regulation in the following respects: (1) It replaces 28 CFR 31.303(f)(6), which provides standards for determining compliance with the core requirements found at 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(11), the “deinstitutionalization of status offenders” (DSO); 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(12), “separation”; and 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(13), “jail removal”; (2) it provides a definition for the term “detain or confine,” clarifying that the term refers to both the secure detention and non-secure detention of juveniles; (3) it changes the deadline to February 28th for States to report their compliance monitoring data for the previous federal fiscal year and provides that the Administrator may, for good cause, grant a State's request for an extension of the February 28th reporting deadline to March 31st; (4) it requires that States provide compliance data for 85% of facilities that are required to report on compliance with the DSO, separation, and jail removal requirements; and (5) it adds a requirement that States provide a full twelve months' worth of compliance data for each reporting period.

    C. Cost and Benefits

    As noted in the preamble to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it is difficult to quantify the financial costs to States of the increased monitoring and reporting requirements, and OJJDP did not receive any comments from States indicating what those increased costs might be. OJJDP expects, however, that those costs will be considerably lower under this partial final rule than they would have been under the proposed rule. For example, under the compliance standards in this partial final rule, only eight States would be out of compliance based on the fiscal year 2013 data, rather than the forty-eight States that would have been out of compliance under the standards in the proposed rule. In addition, in this partial final rule the revised definition of “detain or confine” clarifies, per the statute, that the term does not apply to situations where juveniles are being held solely pending their return to a parent or guardian or pending transfer to the custody of a child welfare or social services agency. Nor (in keeping with the statute) does it apply to situations where juveniles are held in a non-secure area of a building that also houses an adult jail or lockup. OJJDP expects that this clarification, along with the revised definition, will greatly reduce the amount of data that States will have to collect, compared to what they would have had to collect under the proposed definition. Finally, although the proposed rule would have required that 100% of facilities annually report compliance data, this partial final rule provides that States must submit annual compliance data from only 85% of those facilities.

    II. Background A. Overview

    This rule amends the regulation implementing the JJDPA Formula Grant Program at 28 CFR part 31, authorized by 42 U.S.C. 5631(a). This section of the JJDPA authorizes OJJDP to provide an annual grant to each State to improve its juvenile justice system and to support juvenile delinquency prevention programs.

    B. History of This Rulemaking

    On August 8, 2016, OJP published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 81 FR 52377, seeking comments on a rule that would have superseded the current Formula Grant Program regulation at 28 CFR part 31 in its entirety. The period for commenting on the proposed rule closed on October 7, 2016. During that period, OJJDP received 72 written comments, from a diverse array of respondents, representing State entities that administer the JJDPA, child advocacy organizations, public interest groups, and individuals.

    Based on the volume and complexity of the comments received, OJP has decided to publish a partial final rule to implement only some of the provisions included in the proposed rule as amendments to the current regulations. Many of the provisions included in the proposed rule, and responses to comments regarding those provisions, will be addressed in a future final rule, after further consideration.

    Changes Proposed in the Proposed Rule That Are Being Finalized in the Partial Final Rule 2

    2 Because this partial final rule amends only certain sections of part 31, subpart A, rather than replacing the entire regulation (as the proposed rule would have done), the section numbers of these amended provisions correspond with the sections in the current regulations.

    1. The compliance standards included in section 31.9 of the proposed rule for the DSO, separation, and jail removal requirements have been significantly revised. This rule incorporates the revised language by amending section 31.303(f)(6) of the current regulation, through the adoption of a new methodology for determining the compliance standards on an annual basis.

    2. The requirement in section 31.7(d)(1) of the proposed rule that States must annually submit compliance monitoring data from 100% of all facilities that are required to report such data has been modified. This rule amends section 31.303(f)(5) of the current regulations, such that States will be required to report data for 85% of facilities and demonstrate how they would extrapolate and report, in a statistically valid manner, data for the remaining 15% of facilities.

    3. Consistent with the requirement in section 31.8(a) of the proposed rule, this rule amends section 31.303(f)(5) of the current regulations to change the compliance data reporting period to the federal fiscal year as required by the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 5633(c).

    4. Instead of the proposed annual deadline of January 31st included in section 31.8(b) of the proposed rule for States to submit their compliance monitoring reports, this rule amends section 31.303(f)(5) of the current regulations to change the deadline to February 28th, with a provision allowing the Administrator to grant a one-month extension to March 31st upon a State's showing of good cause.

    5. This rule modifies the definition for “detain or confine” included in section 31.2 of the proposed rule. This rule adds this definition in subsection 31.304(q) of the current regulations, and clarifies that it does not apply to juveniles who are being held by law enforcement solely pending their reunification with a parent or guardian or pending transfer to the custody of a child welfare or social services agency.

    Changes Proposed in the Proposed Rule That Will Be Addressed in a Future Final Rule

    1. Proposed changes to the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) requirement;

    2. Providing definitions for the following terms: “Administrator”, “alien”, “annual performance report”, “assessment”, “authorized representative”, “compliance monitoring report”, “construction fixtures”, “contact between juveniles and adult inmates”, “convicted”, “core requirements”, “designated state agency”, “DMC requirements”, “DSO requirements”, “extended juvenile court jurisdiction”, “full due process rights guaranteed to a status offender by the Constitution of the United States”, “jail removal requirements”, “juvenile”, “juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent”, “juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses”, “minority groups”, “monitoring universe”, “non-secure facility”, “placed or placement”, “public holidays”, “residential”, “responsible agency official”, “separation requirements”, “status offender”, “status offense”, “twenty-four hours”;

    3. Proposed deletion of text in the current regulation that is repetitive of statutory provisions;

    4. Proposed deletion of the Federal wards provision in the current regulation;

    5. Proposed deletion of provisions in the current regulation rendered obsolete by the 2002 JJDPA reauthorization;

    6. Proposed deletion of requirements in the current regulation not specific to the formula grant program and are found elsewhere such as in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, at 2 CFR part 200;

    7. Proposed deletion of provisions that describe recommendations rather than requirements;

    8. Proposed deletion of provisions that are unnecessary or duplicative of the formula grant program solicitation;

    9. Prohibited discrimination provision (§ 31.4 in the proposed rule) (i.e., the non-discrimination provision at 28 CFR 31.403—“Civil rights requirements”—remains in effect);

    10. Proposed formula allocation (§ 31.5 in the proposed rule) (which would not alter the formula described in the Act at 42 U.S.C. 5632, but would simply require that a State's annual allocation be based on data available from the U.S. Census Bureau);

    The proposed provision (§ 31.8(c) in the NPRM) requiring that a designated State official certify that the information in the State's compliance monitoring report is correct and complete is not being codified in this partial final rule, but this certification is already required under OJJDP's current policy on “Monitoring of State Compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.” 3

    3 In any event, the report itself is subject to the False Statements Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001, as a matter of course.

    III. Discussion of Comments and Changes Made by This Rule A. Compliance Standards

    Based heavily on feedback from commenters, and in conjunction with statisticians in OJP's Bureau of Justice Statistics, OJJDP has developed new compliance standards using the distribution of compliance rates reported in States' compliance monitoring reports. The compliance standards included in section 31.303(f)(6) of this rule are significantly different from the standards contained in section 31.303(f)(6) of the current formula grant program regulations, as well as from those in the proposed rule. OJJDP believes that the methodology for establishing new compliance standards included in this partial final rule fully addresses the concerns raised by commenters, which are discussed more fully below.

    1. Revised Methodology for Determining Compliance Standards

    In determining the compliance standards, the distribution of each set of compliance rates (i.e., for DSO, separation, and jail removal) using the average of two or more years of data (removing, when appropriate and applicable, one negative outlier each for DSO, separation, and jail removal) and applying a standard deviation factor of not less than one, will be analyzed to determine its mean, and standard deviations therefrom.

    As provided in the final rule, section 31.303(f)(6) provides that, based on this information, a compliance rate that is not less than one standard deviation above the mean rate will be set as the compliance standard. Once established, the standards will be posted annually (in numerical form) on OJJDP's Web site by August 31 of each year. Any State that reports a compliance rate above this compliance standard will be determined to be out of compliance. This methodology will not be applied, however, to States' FY 2016 and FY 2017 compliance monitoring reports, in order to allow for a transition period.

    2. Standard for Determining Compliance Based on States' FY 2016 Compliance Data

    Under the revised methodology described above, only data from Calendar Year (CY) 2013 will be used to establish standards for making compliance determinations based on States' FY 2016 annual monitoring reports (affecting the FY 2017 awards). After removing one negative outlier from the DSO distribution (with a rate of 70.16 per 100,000 juvenile population), one negative outlier from the separation distribution (with a rate of 2.82 per 100,000 juvenile population), and one negative outlier in the jail removal distribution (with a rate of 82.8 per 100,000 juvenile population), the means without the negative outliers, the standard deviations, and what the compliance standards would be, based on two standard deviations above the means, is presented in the table below:

    Core requirement Current compliance standard Mean without
  • negative outlier
  • Standard
  • deviation
  • (SD)
  • Compliance
  • standard
  • (two SD from mean)
  • DSO At or below 5.8, 5.9 to 17.6, 17.7 to 29.4 2.85 6.37 9.89 Separation 0 (with exceptions) 0.04 0.16 0.28 Jail Removal At or below 9 2.38 5.66 8.94

    After removing the negative outlier from data for each of the three core requirements, the average rate, per 100,000 juvenile population, would be 2.85 for DSO, 0.04 for separation, and 2.38 for jail removal. Applying a standard deviation factor of 2 to each of these averages results in a final rate, per 100,000 juvenile population, of 9.89 for DSO, 0.28 for separation, and 8.94 for jail removal. States would need to be at, or below, these rates for OJJDP to find them in compliance with the DSO, separation, and jail removal core requirements.

    As provided in this rule, amending section 31.303(f)(6) of the current regulation, OJJDP will employ the methodology described above in establishing annual compliance standards for DSO, separation, and jail removal core requirements for determinations based on States' FY 2016 data. Immediately following the publication of this partial final rule, OJJDP will post the standards for determining compliance with the DSO, separation and jail removal requirements, which will be derived from CY 2013 data and will be used in making compliance determinations based on States' FY 2016 compliance monitoring reports. These determinations will serve as the basis for establishing whether States will receive their full FY 2017 formula grant allocation or their awards will be reduced for non-compliance.

    3. Standard for Determining Compliance Based on States' FY 2017 Compliance Data

    As provided in this rule, amending section 31.303(f)(6), in establishing compliance standards to apply to the FY 2017 compliance data (affecting the FY 2018 awards), OJJDP will take the average of the combined CY 2013 and FY 2016 compliance data (removing, when appropriate/applicable, one negative outlier in each data collection period for DSO, separation, and jail removal) and apply a standard deviation factor of not less than one to establish the compliance standards to be applied to the FY 2017 compliance monitoring reports.

    This methodology, which may result in compliance standards' being adjusted from one year to the next, recognizes the difficulty that States' face in preventing all instances of non-compliance with each core requirement and allows a State that reports a minimal number of such instances to be found in compliance and to continue to receive its full formula grant allocation.

    Data used to establish compliance standards Applied to
  • compliance monitoring
  • report year
  • Affecting fiscal year title II
  • allocation
  • CY 2013 FY 2016 FY 2017 CY 2013 and FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 and FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2017 and FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
    4. Comments on Proposed Compliance Standards

    OJJDP received numerous comments on the methodology for establishing the compliance standards in the proposed rule, and on the resulting standards published in the proposed rule. Commenters questioned the data used, the methodology employed to establish the standards, and the lack of opportunity to provide supporting documentation to address compliance deficiencies; they also raised the possibility of withdrawing from participation in the Formula Grant Program. Based on these comments, OJJDP has revised the compliance standards in the partial final rule, as discussed below, following a summary of the comments received.

    A number of commenters raised concern with using data from only three States with the lowest rates of compliance, from each of the four Census Bureau regions. Several commenters also made the point that the data used in calculating the proposed compliance standards (CY 2013), did not include data based on the new guidance for “detain or confine,” rendering the calculation unfair, arbitrary, rigid, and extreme. In addition, several States suggested that in calculating a rate for the compliance standards, OJP should use the average of two or three years of data from all States, and those data should include data based on the “detain or confine” guidance.

    A number of commenters stated that it would be unfair not to allow States to provide additional documentation demonstrating how they would address violations as they occur, in order to demonstrate compliance. For example, under the current compliance standards for DSO and jail removal, a State whose rate puts it out of compliance in principle could nevertheless demonstrate compliance with the de minimis standard by providing additional documentation (i.e., recent passage of state law, or executive or judicial policy; or submission of an acceptable plan to eliminate the instances of non-compliance), that would allow it to be found in compliance.

    Additionally, many commenters stated that if their State incurred just one DSO, separation, or jail removal violation, the State would be out of compliance under the proposed standards, resulting in a reduction of their formula grant allocation by 20% for each requirement with which the State is out of compliance. In addition, the State would be required to expend 50% of its remaining allocation to achieve compliance.

    In response, although the current regulation permits States with a certain number of instances of non-compliance nevertheless to be found in compliance with the de minimis standards by providing additional documentation, OJJDP believes that the elimination of the subjective nature of this de minimis review will allow for a clearer and more objective process by which compliance determinations will be made.

    OJJDP appreciates the thoughtful and detailed comments regarding the methodology used to establish the proposed compliance standards for the DSO, separation, and jail removal core requirements. OJJDP agrees that using data from all States, not just three States with the lowest violation rates, from each of the four Census Bureau regions, would provide for a more representative and balanced approach for establishing compliance standards.

    5. States' Withdrawal From Participation in the Formula Grant Program

    Several States questioned whether they would continue to participate in the Formula Grant Program, should the proposed compliance standards be implemented. It has never been OJJDP's intention to implement compliance standards that would discourage States' participation in the Formula Grant Program. OJJDP believes that the methodology described in this partial final rule to establish annual compliance standards is responsive to comments received and will encourage States' continued participation in the Formula Grant Program.

    B. Revised Definition of “Detain or Confine”

    The partial final rule contains a definition for the term “detain or confine” in section 31.304(q) that differs in some respects from what was in the proposed rule. In response to the many comments received, OJJDP has revised the definition in two key respects: To clarify that (1) a juvenile who was not actually free to leave was “detained,” regardless of whether he believed he was free to leave; and (2) juveniles who are being held by law enforcement personnel for their own safety, and pending their reunification with a parent or guardian or pending transfer to the custody of a child welfare or social service agency, are not “detained or confined” within the meaning of the JJDPA.

    OJJDP recognizes that the definition in the proposed rule may not have made sufficiently clear that the primary question in determining whether a juvenile was detained is whether he was, in fact, free to leave. If law enforcement personnel would not have allowed the juvenile to leave, he was necessarily being detained, and there is no need to inquire as to whether he believed he was free to leave. For this reason, OJJDP has revised the definition to indicate that “detain or confine” means to hold, keep, or restrain a person such that he is not free to leave. If law enforcement personnel indicate that the juvenile was free to leave, it would be incumbent upon them to explain how/why the juvenile would have understood that he was free to leave.

    This revised definition also allows law enforcement to hold juveniles who (for example) are runaways, abandoned, endangered due to mental illness, homelessness, or drug addiction, or are victims of sex trafficking or other crimes, held pending their return to their parent or guardian or while law enforcement locates a safe environment in which to place them. In such instances, juveniles would not be considered to be “detained or confined” at all.

    Before addressing the specific comments regarding the definition of “detain or confine” that was included in the proposed rule, OJJDP offers additional clarification of the impact of the definition of “detain or confine,” as used in the separation and jail removal requirements at 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(12) and (13), respectively. First, those core requirements are applicable only in specific types of facilities. In determining whether there has been an instance of non-compliance with either of these core requirements, it is critical to note that the threshold inquiry must be “In what type of facility was the juvenile held?” An instance of non-compliance with the separation requirement can occur only in secure facilities in which juveniles have sight and sound contact with adult inmates.4 An instance of non-compliance with the jail removal requirement can occur only in a jail or lockup for adults, as defined at 42 U.S.C. 5603(22). If the juvenile was not held in one of these types of facilities, the inquiry ends there, and there can be no instance of non-compliance. Only if the facility is a jail or lockup for adults or is a secure facility or a secure area within a facility in which adult inmates are detained must it be determined whether the juvenile was detained or confined therein. For this reason, States need not monitor and report on “Terry” investigative stops on the street or instances in which juveniles are detained within a public or private school, or anywhere other than a jail or lockup for adults, or a secure facility in which adult inmates are detained or confined.

    4 Under 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(12), the separation requirement is implicated when a juvenile is detained or confined in any institution in which he has contact with an adult inmate. “Contact” is defined at 42 U.S.C. 5603(25) as “the degree of interaction allowed between juvenile offenders in a secure custody status and incarcerated adults” under 28 CFR 31.303(d)(1)(i) (emphasis added). In turn, section 31.303(d)(1)(i) states: “A juvenile offender in a secure custody status is one who is physically detained or confined in a locked room or other area set aside or used for the specific purpose of securely detaining persons who are in law enforcement custody” (emphasis added). Read together, these provisions indicate that “institution” as used in the separation requirement must be understood to be a secure facility.

    OJP received many questions regarding whether specific scenarios would constitute a juvenile's being detained or confined, under the definition in the proposed rule. Because these were questions, rather than comments on the proposed rule, OJJDP will address them through guidance on OJJDP's Web site. OJJDP also encourages States to submit any additional questions about specific fact patterns, which will be posted along with answers on OJJDP's Web site.

    Comment That OJP Is Incorrectly Using “Miranda” Standards in Defining “Detain or Confine”

    Several commenters objected to OJJDP's adherence to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in determining an appropriate definition of the phrase “detain or confine.”

    In response, despite these commenters' opinions to the contrary, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is applicable in the context of defining “detain or confine” for the purposes of the JJDPA, as the plain language of that phrase references the restraining of an individual's (in this context, a juvenile's) liberty, which, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 552 (1980), is the very definition of a “seizure.” 5 Thus, OJJDP does not agree with the argument that the application of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence generally, and/or the standards set forth in Mendenhall specifically, is improper.

    5 As noted in the proposed rule, per U.S. v. Mendenhall, the Fourth Amendment governs all “seizures” of the person, “including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” See 446 U.S. 544, 547 (1980). Further, a “seizure” for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment has occurred when an officer “by means of physical force or a show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” Id. at 548.

    Moreover, while OJJDP recognizes that Mendenhall was in fact a case involving an adult, the U.S. Supreme Court has never limited the Fourth Amendment protections enumerated therein to the adult population. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized that, due to the inherent differences between adults and juveniles (in terms of maturity and reasoning), juveniles should, in certain circumstances, be afforded more protections than adults would be. One such example is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011). Contrary to some commenters' understanding, J.D.B. v. North Carolina did not establish a de facto “reasonable minor” standard for determining juvenile custody that was somehow separate from the standard established in Mendenhall. Rather, the Supreme Court's decision in J.D.B.—that a juvenile's age may affect his or her perception(s) of his or her interactions with law enforcement, and a juvenile's age, therefore, must be one of many factors considered in any determination of whether the interrogation of the juvenile was a “custodial interrogation” for the purposes of Miranda warnings—was an explicit acknowledgement that Fourth Amendment protections espoused in Mendenhall not only extend to juveniles, but actually may be expanded under some circumstances where juveniles are concerned. Nonetheless, OJJDP has considered the commenters' stated objections to the application of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and has revised the definition to clarify that whether the juvenile is, in fact, free to leave is the critical factor in determining whether he is detained. If he is not, in fact, free to leave, as OJJDP expects will be the case in the vast majority of instances, he is detained.

    Comments Received Regarding Proposed Definition of “Detain or Confine”

    One commenter questioned the reason for the proposed definition, stating that there has been either no research or at least no broadly published research that a significantly widespread problem exists that supports the implementation of the new definition.

    In response, OJJDP notes that the purpose of including the definition of “detain or confine” in the proposed rule, and in the partial final rule, is to clarify that the separation and jail removal requirements are implicated when a juvenile is detained in certain settings, regardless of whether he is “securely” detained. As noted above, the word “detain” has a plain meaning in 4th Amendment jurisprudence. Under that jurisprudence, one can be detained without being “securely” detained such as by a show of authority. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20, n.16 (1968)). Therefore, the absence of the word “securely” before “detain” in the JJDPA indicates that, on its face, the statutory term is not limited to juveniles who are “securely” detained. Consistent with the definition of “detain or confine” in the proposed rule, and with the revised definition included in this partial final rule, the current regulation is being amended by removing the word “securely”. To understand “detained” to refer only to juveniles who are “securely” detained would be to read a word into the statute that is simply not there.

    Several commenters contended that the proposed definition of “detain or confine” is contrary to the intent of the drafters of the JJDPA, which was to protect juveniles held in secure custody. Because the term “detain or confine” is itself unambiguous, there is neither room for interpretation of the term nor warrant to attempt to determine—beyond what the plain text of the statute itself indicates—the “intent” of the drafters. Thus, OJJDP has not changed the definition to mean only secure detention.6

    6 A juvenile could be non-securely detained in a secure facility or secure area of an adult jail or lockup. For instance, the juvenile might physically be in the jail or lockup area, sitting in a chair without handcuffs or other restraints, but “detained” as the result of a show of authority by a law enforcement official present, making it clear the juvenile is not free to leave, which would result in an instance of non-compliance with the jail removal and possibly separation requirements.

    One commenter suggested that OJJDP is proposing a new definition of “detain or confine,” in order to address problems in select jurisdictions, and that research should be conducted to determine the extent of the problem of “youth languishing in law enforcement custody in a non-secure environment.” In response, OJJDP believes that the commenter misunderstood the purpose for the inclusion of this definition, which is not to address concerns within specific jurisdictions, but to conform more closely to the JJDPA and to clarify for all jurisdictions the plain meaning of the term used in the statute.

    Concern About Law Enforcement's Ability To Detain Juveniles Temporarily, for Their Own Safety

    Many commenters recommended that OJJDP maintain the current definition of “detain or confine,” which requires the physical restraint of a juvenile in a holding cell or locked interview room or by cuffing to a stationary object, because that would allow law enforcement to continue to detain a juvenile non-securely in a law enforcement facility for his own safety, and pending his return to his parent or guardian, without its resulting in an instance of non-compliance. Several commenters also stated that the proposed definition would give law enforcement the incentive to charge juveniles with a delinquent offense, or to charge them as adults because States could then detain them securely without a resulting instance of non-compliance.

    In response, as explained above, OJJDP's revised definition in this rule clarifies that when law enforcement personnel are holding a juvenile only pending his return to his parent or guardian or pending his transfer to the custody of a child welfare or social service agency, he is not detained. OJJDP believes that the revised definition will allay the concerns raised by many commenters that under the proposed definition of “detain or confine,” law enforcement would have a disincentive to bring status offenders or non-offenders (such as runaways) to a law enforcement facility to hold them until a parent or guardian could pick them up.

    One commenter requested that OJJDP clearly specify who qualifies as a parent or guardian, but that is a determination that should be made according to the law of the relevant State.

    Several commenters questioned whether liability would attach if law enforcement personnel were to tell a juvenile that he was free to leave a law enforcement facility, the juvenile did leave the law enforcement facility, and as a result the juvenile suffered some harm. OJP believes it would not be appropriate for OJP to provide legal advice to States as to whether law enforcement personnel or a law enforcement agency could be held liable in such a situation.

    How will law enforcement know what a juvenile reasonably believes?

    Many commenters stated that the proposed definition of “detain or confine” is vague, ambiguous, or confusing in that it is difficult to know whether a juvenile in a particular situation would have understood that he was free to leave. Several commenters also stated that the proposed definition is too subjective and will make it extremely difficult for law enforcement to know when a juvenile is being “detained” for purposes of the Formula Grant Program.

    OJJDP disagrees that the definition is vague, ambiguous or confusing. As noted above, the key question is whether the juvenile was, in fact, free to leave the law enforcement facility, because the juvenile's state of mind is irrelevant if he was not free to leave. Under the revised definition in this partial final rule, it is only in instances where law enforcement personnel assert that the juvenile actually was free to leave that the inquiry next proceeds to whether the juvenile understood that he was free to leave. Contrary to the commenters' assertions, however, this second inquiry does not necessitate that law enforcement “read the minds of juveniles” or determine whether a “reasonable juvenile” would have felt free to leave. Rather, in keeping with applicable Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, this second determination requires an objective examination of the circumstances surrounding the juvenile's interaction with law enforcement, including any circumstance that would have affected how a reasonable person in the juvenile's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave. Because a juvenile's age may affect how a reasonable person in his position would perceive his freedom to leave, consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, where the juvenile's age is known to law enforcement, it must be a factor that is taken into consideration in making the determination. See J.D.B., 564 U.S. at 275-77. It bears noting that the juvenile's age may not be determinative, or even a significant factor, in every case; but it is one objective factor that must be taken into consideration, along with other objective factors such as the location(s) of the juvenile's interaction(s) with law enforcement, the duration of law enforcement's interaction(s) with the juvenile, the number of law enforcement officers present during the interaction(s), and any other circumstances surrounding the juvenile's time in the presence of law enforcement that may inform a determination as to whether the juvenile understood he was free to leave.

    One commenter stated that whether a juvenile believes he is free to leave is irrelevant to whether he is protected from potential harm by being in contact with an adult inmate. The same commenter stated that law enforcement personnel have the ability “simply by their presence . . . [to] limit conversation or other interaction between the juvenile and any adult inmate, thus limiting potential for harm.” In response, OJJDP believes that the commenter's quarrel is with the JJDPA itself. By its express terms, the statute's separation requirement is implicated when a juvenile is detained or confined in any institution in which he has contact with an adult inmate, regardless of whether law enforcement personnel are present and able to limit his interaction with an adult inmate.

    How will law enforcement document whether a juvenile knew that he was free to leave?

    At least one commenter noted that the proposed definition of “detain or confine” would cause a burden to law enforcement and complicate compliance monitoring activity, noting it will be cumbersome for law enforcement officers to collect relevant information every time a juvenile is brought to their departments. Additionally, several commenters questioned how law enforcement would document whether a juvenile knew that he was free to leave. In the preamble to the proposed rule, OJJDP gave as an example that law enforcement could produce a video recording of the juvenile indicating that he understood that he was free to leave. Commenters stated that requiring law enforcement personnel to make such a video recording is impractical and cost-prohibitive. OJJDP understands the additional burden that would create for a law enforcement agency. A more practical method of indicating that a juvenile understood that he was free to leave would be for law enforcement personnel to have the juvenile sign a form indicating that he understood he was free to leave, or for a law enforcement official to sign a form certifying that the juvenile was advised that he was free to leave.

    One commenter expressed concern that juveniles who would not otherwise have their information put into a law enforcement database might now be entered into the system. We note that States could use paper forms that would be made available to the State's compliance monitor but need not be entered into any law enforcement computer system.

    Applicability of Term “Detain or Confine” to the DSO Requirement

    Several commenters questioned the use of the term “detain or confine” within the context of the DSO requirement. The commenter is correct that, unlike the separation and jail removal requirements, in which the term “detain or confine” is used, the DSO requirement is implicated when a juvenile is “placed” in a secure detention or secure correctional facility. The commenter asserted that the use of a different term—“placed”—for the DSO requirement—thus indicates that the term means something other than simply “detained or confined.”

    In response, OJJDP notes that the “placement” of a juvenile in a secure detention or secure correctional facility means, at a minimum, that he is not free to leave and is, therefore detained (and confined). Therefore, a juvenile who has been “placed” has necessarily been “detained or confined.”

    In the proposed rule, for the purposes of determining whether the DSO requirement would be applicable, OJJDP had included a proposed definition of the term “placed or placement” to clarify that it would refer, not to mere “detention or confinement,” but to circumstances where detention or confinement within a secure juvenile detention or correctional facility has resulted in a “placement.” Many commenters noted concerns about the proposed definition of “placed or placement.” The partial final rule does not include a definition of “placed or placement.” This issue will be addressed in a future final rule, and OJJDP will respond to all comments regarding this issue in detail in the subsequent final rule.

    Whether a Juvenile's Participation in a “Scared Straight” or “Shock Incarceration” Program Would Result in Non-Compliance With the Jail Removal and/or Separation Requirements

    A commenter questioned whether, under the proposed rule, a juvenile under public authority could be required to participate in a “Scared Straight” or “shock incarceration” program in which he is brought into contact with an adult within an adult jail or lockup or in a secure correctional facility for adults, as a means of modifying his behavior. The commenter asked whether such participation would result in an instance of non-compliance with the jail removal and/or separation requirements when a parent has consented to the child's participation in the program, or in an instance in which the juvenile who is participating in the program as a form of diversion fails to complete the program and the original charge is reinstated. The commenter is apparently questioning whether the voluntariness of a juvenile's participation, and whether there would be consequences for not participating, in such a program would determine whether or not he was “detained” within sight or sight or sound contact of an adult inmate, resulting in an instance of non-compliance.

    In response, OJJDP notes that whether such programs may result in instances of non-compliance with the separation and/or jail removal requirements will depend on the specific manner in which the program operates and the circumstances of the juveniles' participation in the program. A key factor in determining whether instances of non-compliance have occurred is whether juveniles participating in the program were free to leave the program while in sight or sound contact with adult inmates, regardless of whether the juvenile's initial participation was voluntary. If a parent or guardian has consented to his child's participation and may withdraw that consent at any time, the juvenile is not detained. States are encouraged to contact OJJDP for guidance about whether a particular program is resulting in—or has resulted in—instances of non-compliance. Generally speaking, if a juvenile participates in a program as a condition of diversion from the juvenile justice system, and does so with a parent's or guardian's consent, he is not detained, regardless of whether his failure to complete the program would result in the reinstatement of a charge against him.

    Applicability of Proposed Definition of “Detain or Confine” to the Six-Hour Exception in the JJDPA at 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(13)(A)

    Several commenters questioned how the proposed definition would apply to the provision allowing States to detain an accused delinquent offender for up to six hours for processing or release, while awaiting transfer to a juvenile facility, or in which period such juveniles make a court appearance, without a resulting instance of non-compliance. In response, OJJDP believes that no change in the final definition is needed in response to this comment. The definition in this rule would not alter the JJDPA exception at 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(13)(A) that allows States to detain an accused delinquent offender for up to 6 hours for those purposes.

    Applicability of Proposed Definition of “Detain or Confine” to Juveniles Under Criminal Jurisdiction

    One commenter stated that there should be an exception to the application of the proposed definition of “detain or confine” for juveniles waived or transferred to a criminal court. In response, OJJDP believes that no change in the final definition is needed in response to this comment. The core requirements do not apply to juveniles who are under criminal court jurisdiction.

    Recommending a “Rural Exception” to the New Definition

    Another commenter recommended that if OJJDP decides to alter the current definition of “detain or confine”, it should create a “rural exception” to the rule that would allow non-metropolitan areas to continue to use the current definition. OJJDP has no authority under the JJDPA to allow certain States or localities to use a different definition of the term “detain or confine.”

    Proposed Alternative Definition of “Detain or Confine”

    One commenter recommended that OJJDP remove the word “detain” from the definition and focus only on the confinement of juveniles, which the commenter asserts would be consistent with guidance provided in a memo from the OJJDP Administrator dated February 13, 2008. The Administrator's memorandum discusses the definition of an adult lockup, relevant to determining the facilities in which an instance of non-compliance with the jail removal requirement can occur. In response, OJJDP believes that no change in the definition is needed in response to this comment. The instances of non-compliance with the jail removal requirement addressed in the Administrator's memorandum can occur only in facilities that meet the definition of a “jail or lockup for adults” as defined in the JJDPA at 42 U.S.C. 5603(22). That definition requires that the facility must be a “locked facility.” Thus, instances of non-compliance with the jail removal requirement cannot occur in non-secure facilities. Nor, as discussed above, would a juvenile's detention in the non-secure portion of a law enforcement facility implicate the jail removal requirement.

    Whether the Definition of “Detain or Confine” Will Expand the Monitoring Universe

    Many commenters expressed concerns about whether the proposed rule would expand the types of facilities that must be included in the monitoring universe. In response, OJJDP has concluded that the definition of “detain or confine” in this final rule does not expand the current monitoring universe and that no change in the definition in the final rule is needed in response to this comment. Under OJJDP's current guidance, the following facilities must be monitored: Adult jails and lockups, secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, court holding facilities, and collocated facilities (which includes facilities previously listed). Non-secure facilities must be monitored periodically to ensure that they have not changed characteristics such that they have become secure facilities. OJJDP will respond to all comments regarding the scope of the monitoring universe in greater detail in the subsequent final rule that will be published in the future with respect to matters not covered in this partial final rule.

    What data are expected for a compliance monitor to collect in order to monitor adequately?

    Many commenters questioned what additional data would be required under the proposed definition of “detain or confine,” and how those data should be collected. Under the proposed rule, as well as under the revised definition in this rule, law enforcement personnel in adult jails and lockups and other secure facilities in which both juveniles and adult inmates are detained, would be required to keep logs regarding juveniles who are detained securely and non-securely (and not merely those securely detained, as States have done previously). It is important to note here that such logs should not include juveniles detained—either securely or non-securely—in a non-secure area of a law enforcement facility, as the separation and jail removal requirements are not applicable in that context. It should be stressed here that the revised definition of “detain or confine” in this final rule does not include juveniles who are held solely pending return to their parents or guardians or pending transfer to a social service or child welfare agency, thus eliminating the need for States to collect data on juveniles held for these reasons. Similarly, law enforcement personnel in institutions (secure facilities) in which (1) accused or adjudicated delinquent offenders, (2) status offenders, and (3) non-offenders who are aliens (or are alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused) might have contact with adult inmates, would be required to keep logs on when such juveniles did, in fact, have contact with adult inmates.

    Need for Training and Technical Assistance

    Several commenters expressed concern that OJJDP has not provided any training on the implementation of the “detain or confine” guidance, stating that it is unrealistic to expect States to apply this new guidance until appropriate training and technical assistance has been provided. Other commenters stated that it would be cost-prohibitive for States to provide such training to law enforcement personnel. Another commenter suggested that OJJDP should highlight successful models both for determining in what common situations a juvenile would likely believe he is not free to leave as well as examples of best practices for States with rural and/or diffuse populations.

    In response, OJJDP intends to provide additional guidance materials regarding implementation of the proposed definition of “detain or confine” and is also planning to provide States with training in 2017 on how to monitor for, and collect and report data on compliance in accordance with that definition.

    C. Requirement That 100% of Facilities Must Report Compliance Data

    Many commenters expressed concern about the proposed requirement that 100% of facilities in their States be required to report annual compliance data.7 Commenters expressed concern that it would not be possible to achieve the 100% threshold, raising a number of challenges they would face in collecting data from 100% of the facilities in their States, including lack of legislative authority, time constraints, and an increase in associated costs.

    7 This requirement was included in OJJDP's Policy: Monitoring of State Compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, provided to States in October 2015.

    In response, OJJDP believes that many of the commenters' concerns may have arisen from the belief that the proposed rule would have expanded the monitoring universe to include additional facilities with respect to which States are not currently collecting data. As discussed above, under the proposed rule and, more importantly, under this partial final rule, the monitoring universe does not change, and States will continue to be required to monitor adult jails and lockups, secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, and any other institutions (secure facilities) in which juveniles might have contact with adult inmates. (States must also continue to monitor non-secure facilities to ensure that they have not changed physical characteristics such that they have become secure facilities.)

    A few commenters suggested that the number of facilities that must report be reduced. (Various commenters respectively suggested 85%, 90%, or 95% as being a more practical requirement than the 100% level in the proposed rule.) In response, OJJDP acknowledges and understands the challenges described by the States in their comments, and this partial final rule has revised the proposal, so that States will be required to collect and report compliance data for 85% of facilities and to demonstrate how they would extrapolate and report, in a statistically valid manner, data for the remaining 15% of facilities.

    Under the JJDPA at 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(14), the state plan that each State must submit in order to be eligible for Formula Grant Program funding must “provide for an adequate system of monitoring jails, detention facilities, corrections facilities, and non-secure facilities to insure that the [DSO, separation, and jail removal requirements] are met, and for annual reporting of the results of such monitoring to the Administrator.” (Emphasis added.) The statutory provision does not specifically require reporting from 100% of facilities in a State's annual monitoring report, thus giving OJJDP the administrative discretion to permit States to report for less than 100% of all facilities in the State, provided that its monitoring system be adequate. It is in the exercise of this same administrative discretion that OJJDP for decades used (and promulgated in its regulations for this program) various de minimis standards that allowed for less than full compliance by States under appropriate circumstances. Cf. Washington Red Raspberry Comm'n v. United States, 859 F. 2d 898, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The de minimis concept is well-established in federal law. Federal courts and administrative agencies repeatedly have applied the de minimis principle in interpreting statues, even when Congress failed explicitly to provide for the rule.”)

    A few commenters indicated concern with the “good cause” standard in the proposed rule allowing for waiver of the proposed requirement for States to report data from 100% of facilities. In response, OJJDP notes that the reduction from 100% to 85% of the number of facilities required to report eliminates the need for a waiver exception to the reporting requirement, and that proposal is not included in this final rule.

    D. Issues Relating to Reporting Compliance Data for Core Requirements 1. Reporting of Compliance Data Based on Federal Fiscal Years and Deadline for Reporting Compliance Data

    Many commenters objected to the language in the proposed rule requiring that States provide compliance data on a fiscal-year basis, because of the shortened period States will have for submitting compliance data from the time the reporting period ends on September 30th of each year and the proposed deadline of January 31st for submitting their data. A few commenters noted that the period in which States will be collecting and verifying their data includes several holidays during which staff often take leave and also occurs during a period in which weather conditions make travel difficult within many States.

    Additionally, commenters expressed concern that this shortened timeframe would present significant challenges to submission of accurate data (especially in light of the requirement to collect data from 100% of facilities) and would require additional resources to do so. A few commenters recommended extending the deadline, for instance, to March 15th or March 31st.

    OJJDP has carefully considered these comments. The JJDPA itself requires reporting data on a fiscal-year basis, which was the reason for conforming the regulatory reporting period to the statutory requirement.

    In response to the concerns raised and balancing them with OJJDP's need for sufficient time to complete compliance determinations that will inform that year's awards, OJJDP has extended the deadline in this partial final rule to February 28th, with the possibility of an extension to March 31st if a State were to demonstrate good cause.

    2. Requirement That States Report Twelve Months of Data for Each Reporting Period

    One commenter questioned whether the proposed requirement that 100% of facilities report compliance data annually would affect the requirement in section 31.303(f)(5) of the current regulation that States may submit a minimum of six months' of data for a reporting period. The proposed rule indicated that States' compliance monitoring reports must contain data for “one full federal fiscal year.”

    In response, OJJDP has clarified the applicability of this language. This partial final rule amends section 31.303(f)(5) to delete the language allowing States to report “not less than six months of data,” thus making it clear that States are required to provide compliance data for the full twelve-month reporting period. (And, as noted above, this partial final rule provides that States must submit data from 85% of facilities that are required to report compliance data.)

    IV. Regulatory Certifications Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Formula Grant Program provides funding to States pursuant to a statutory provision, which is not affected by this regulation. Because States have complete discretion as to which local governments and other entities will receive formula grant funds through subgrants, as well as the amount of any subgrants, this rule will have no direct effect on any particular local governments or entities.

    OJJDP received more than one comment disagreeing with OJJDP's assessment that the proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OJJDP's basis for so certifying is that the rule regulates only States and territories, which are the recipients of funding under the Formula Grant Program. Commenters argued that the proposed rule, if made final as proposed, potentially would result in as many as 48 States being out of compliance with one or more of the core requirements. One commenter notes that because the States are required by statute to pass through 662/3 percent of the funding, the basis for certifying there is no significant impact on a substantial number of small governmental entities is not plausible and that cutting the funding to that number of States would certainly affect a substantial number of small entities.

    OJJDP disagrees with these comments because, as noted above, only grants to States and territories are regulated by the rule. Nonetheless, in this partial final rule, OJJDP has revised significantly the compliance standards, and expects that under the revised standards only eight States are likely to be out of compliance with one or more of the core requirements under the Act, and to receive a reduction in funding as a result.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—Regulatory Review

    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(b), General Principles of Regulation.

    The Office of Justice Programs has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This partial final rule makes important improvements in the setting of annual compliance standards for the States, clarifies the definition of “detain or confine,” and makes other improvements in the administration of the Formula Grant Program. The total formula grant appropriation funding available to States for the last five years has been less than $43 million per year.

    Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitative values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.

    This most significant provision of this rule updates the standards for determining compliance with the DSO, separation, and jail removal requirements, which have not been updated since 1981 for DSO, 1994 for separation, and 1988 for jail removal. The new compliance standards in this rule were carefully considered in light of the potential costs and benefits that would result and are narrowly tailored to recognize the significant progress that States have made over the last 35 years while ensuring that States continue to strive to protect juveniles within the juvenile justice system.

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    One commenter stated that in the Regulatory Certifications section of the preamble to the proposed rule (section V.), “the classical argument between state rights vers[u]s federal powers is mentioned in great detail and so we feel should be addressed.” OJJDP does not agree that that section includes any discussion of States' rights in relation to the federal government, or that any such discussion would be relevant. The Formula Grant Program does not impose any mandates on States; nor does it interfere with States' sovereignty, authorities, or rights. States, rather, participate in the program voluntarily and, as a condition of receipt of funding to improve their juvenile justice systems and to operate juvenile delinquency prevention programs, agree to comply with the program's requirements.

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as the rule only affects the eligibility for, and use of, federal funding under this program. The rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, or preempt any State laws. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order No. 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) & (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of this rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States, except as the same may be contained within subpart B of part 94 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

    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 $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Formula Grant Program provides funds to States to improve their juvenile justice systems and to support juvenile delinquency prevention programs. As a condition of funding, States agree to comply with the Formula Grant Program requirements. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Congressional Review Act

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 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 companies to compete with foreign- based companies in domestic and export markets.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not propose any new, or changes to existing, “collection[s] of information” as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 31

    Administrative practice and procedure, Formula Grant Program, Juvenile delinquency prevention, Juvenile justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 31 of chapter I of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 31—OJJDP GRANT PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 31 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C 5611(b); 42 U.S.C. 5631-5633.

    Subpart A—Formula Grants
    § 31.303 Substantive requirements.
    2. Amend § 31.303 as follows: a. In paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3)(i), and (f)(4)(vi), remove the words “secure custody” and add in their place “detention”. b. Revise paragraph (f)(5) introductory text. c. In paragraph (f)(5)(i)(D), remove the words “securely detained” and add in their place “detained”. d. In paragraphs (f)(5)(iii)(C) and (f)(5)(iii)(D), remove the words “secure detention and confinement” and add in their place “detention and confinement”. e. In paragraphs (f)(5)(iv)(F), (G), (H), and (I), remove the words “held securely” and add in their place “detained”. f. Revise paragraph (f)(6).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 31.303 Substantive requirements.

    (f) * * *

    (5) Reporting requirement. The State shall report annually to the Administrator of OJJDP on the results of monitoring for the core requirements in the JJDPA at 42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(12), (13), and (14). The reporting period should provide 12 months of data for each federal fiscal year, for 85% of facilities within the State that are required to report compliance data, and States must extrapolate and report, in a statistically valid manner, data for the remaining 15% of facilities. The report shall be submitted to the Administrator of OJJDP by February 28 of each year, except that the Administrator may grant an extension of the reporting deadline to March 31st, for good cause, upon request by a State.

    (6) Compliance. The State must demonstrate the extent to which the requirements of sections 223(a)(11), (12), and (13) of the Act are met.

    (i) In determining the compliance standards to be applied to States' FY 2016 compliance monitoring data, the Administrator shall collect all of the data from each of the States' CY 2013 compliance reports, remove one negative outlier in each data collection period for DSO, separation, and jail removal, and apply a standard deviation factor of two to establish the compliance standards to be applied, which shall be posted on OJJDP's Web site no later than March 3, 2017.

    (ii) In determining the compliance standards to be applied to States' FY 2017 compliance monitoring data, the Administrator shall collect all of the data from each of the States' CY 2013 and FY 2016 compliance reports (removing, when appropriate or applicable, one negative outlier in each data collection period for DSO, separation, and jail removal) and apply a standard deviation factor of not less than one to establish the compliance standards to be applied, which shall be posted on OJJDP's Web site by August 31, 2017.

    (iii) In determining the compliance standards to be applied to States' FY 2018 and subsequent years' compliance monitoring data, the Administrator shall take the average of the States' compliance monitoring data from not less than two years prior to the compliance reporting period with respect to which the compliance determination will be made (removing, when applicable, one negative outlier in each data collection period for DSO, separation, and jail removal) and apply a standard deviation of not less than one to establish the compliance standards to be applied, except that the Administrator may make adjustments to the methodology described in this paragraph as he deems necessary and shall post the compliance standards on OJJDP's Web site by August 31st of each year.

    3. Amend § 31.304 by adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:
    § 31.304 Definitions.

    (q) Detain or confine means to hold, keep, or restrain a person such that he is not free to leave, or such that a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave, except that a juvenile held by law enforcement solely for the purpose of returning him to his parent or guardian or pending his transfer to the custody of a child welfare or social service agency is not detained or confined within the meaning of this definition.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Karol V. Mason, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00740 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Part 538 Sudanese Sanctions Regulations AGENCY:

    Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations to authorize all prohibited transactions, including transactions involving property in which the Government of Sudan has an interest. OFAC is issuing this general license in connection with ongoing U.S.-Sudan bilateral engagement and in response to positive developments in the country over the past six months related to bilateral cooperation, the ending of internal hostilities, regional cooperation, and improvements to humanitarian access.

    DATES:

    Effective: January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Availability

    This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac).

    Background

    OFAC is amending the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (the “Regulations”) to add section 538.540, authorizing all transactions prohibited by the Regulations and by Executive Orders 13067 and 13412, effective as of January 17, 2017. Newly authorized transactions include the processing of transactions involving persons in Sudan; the importation of goods and services from Sudan; the exportation of goods, technology, and services to Sudan; and transactions involving property in which the Government of Sudan has an interest.

    OFAC is issuing this rule in connection with ongoing U.S.-Sudan bilateral engagement and in order to support and sustain positive developments in the country over the past six months. In conjunction with this engagement, the U.S. government has supported the Sudanese government's ongoing efforts, including its cessation of military offensives in Darfur and the Two Areas, its cooperative efforts to resolve the ongoing conflict in South Sudan and cease any activity to undermine stability there, to improve access for humanitarian assistance by reducing government obstruction and streamlining governing regulations, and to enhance bilateral counterterrorism and security cooperation, including efforts to counter the Lord's Resistance Army.

    Notwithstanding these positive developments in Sudan and the decision to amend the Regulations today to authorize all transactions prohibited by the Regulations, section 906 of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) (TSRA), continues to require in pertinent part that the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan shall be made pursuant to one-year licenses issued by the U.S. government, except that the requirements of such one-year licenses shall be no more restrictive than general licenses administered by the Department of the Treasury. See 22 U.S.C. 7205(a)(1). Section 906 of TSRA also specifies that procedures be in place to deny licenses for certain exports of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan. As with a general license added to the Regulations in 2011 that authorized the exportation or reexportation of food to Sudan (see 31 CFR 538.523; 76 FR 63191 (October 12, 2011)), the new general license added today includes the one-year license requirement and, along with counter-terrorism sanctions implemented by OFAC set forth in 31 CFR chapter V and other continuing requirements and authorities, satisfies TSRA's requirement that procedures be in place to deny authorization for exports to Sudan that are determined to be promoting international terrorism. In particular, § 501.601 of the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, 31 CFR part 501 (RPPR), requires that all U.S. persons maintain records of authorized transactions for a period of not less than five years and further provides that OFAC may obtain these records at any time to monitor activities conducted pursuant to the general license; section 538.502 of the Regulations provides that OFAC may exclude any person, property, or transaction from the operation of this general license; and section 501.803 of the RPPR provides that OFAC may amend, modify, or revoke this general license at any time.

    This new general license does not eliminate the need to comply with other provisions of 31 CFR chapter V including those parts related to terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or narcotics trafficking, or other applicable provisions of law, including any requirements of agencies other than OFAC. Such requirements include, for example, the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce. This general license does not affect past, present, or future enforcement actions or investigations with respect to any violations, including apparent or alleged violations, of the Regulations that occurred prior to the effective date of this final rule.

    Public Participation

    Because the amendment of the Regulations involves a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in the RPPR. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

    List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 538

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Foreign trade, Sanctions, Services, Sudan.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 538 to read as follows:

    PART 538—SUDANESE SANCTIONS REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 538 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211; Pub. L. 109-344, 120 Stat. 1869; Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13067, 62 FR 59989, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 230; E.O. 13412, 71 FR 61369, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 244.

    Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and Statements of Licensing Policy 2. Add § 538.540 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 538.540 All transactions authorized; Government of Sudan property unblocked.

    (a) All transactions prohibited by this part and Executive Orders 13067 and 13412, including all transactions that involve property in which the Government of Sudan has an interest, are authorized.

    (b) Pursuant to section 906(a)(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7205), any exports or reexports of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices to the Government of Sudan, to any individual or entity in Sudan, or to any person in a third country purchasing specifically for resale to any of the foregoing must be shipped within the 12-month period beginning on the date of the signing of the contract for export or reexport.

    Note 1 to § 538.540:

    Section 538.540 authorizes all transactions necessary to unblock any property or interests in property that were blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 538.201 prior to January 17, 2017, including the return or processing of funds.

    Note 2 to § 538.540:

    This authorization is effective on January 17, 2017 and does not eliminate the need to comply with other provisions of 31 CFR chapter V or other applicable provisions of law, including any requirements of agencies other than the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Such requirements include the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts 120 through 130) administered by the Department of State.

    Note 3 to § 538.540:

    Consistent with section 906(a)(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7205), each year OFAC will determine whether to revoke this general license. Unless revoked, the general license will remain in effect.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. John E. Smith, Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00844 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0007] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone—North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a security zone associated with the North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI. This security zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Detroit River in order to ensure the safety and security of participants, visitors, and public officials at the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS), which is being held at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit, MI. Vessels in close proximity to the security zone will be subject to increased monitoring and boarding during the enforcement of the security zone. No person or vessel may enter the security zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit.

    DATES:

    The security zone regulation described in 33 CFR 165.915(a)(3) will be enforced from 8 a.m. on January 9, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207; telephone (313) 568-9564; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI security zone listed in 33 CFR 165.915(a)(3). This security zone includes all waters of the Detroit River encompassed by a line beginning at a point of origin on land adjacent to the west end of Joe Lewis Arena at 42°19.44′ N., 083°03.11′ W.; then extending offshore approximately 150 yards to 42°19.39′ N., 083°03.07′ W.; then proceeding upriver approximately 2000 yards to a point at 42°19.72′ N., 083°01.88′ W.; then proceeding onshore to a point on land adjacent the Tercentennial State Park at 42°19.79′ N., 083°01.90′ W.; then proceeding downriver along the shoreline to connect back to the point of origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative, who may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel may enter or remain in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit. Each person and vessel in this security zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port Detroit. The Captain of the Port Detroit may take possession and control of any vessel in this security zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit may remove any person, vessel, article, or thing from this security zone. No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on board any vessel in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of Port Detroit. No person may take or place any article or thing upon any waterfront facility in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit.

    Vessels that wish to transit through this security zone shall request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals may be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.915 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). If the Captain of the Port determines that this security zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document; he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: January 6, 2017. Scott B. Lemasters, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00464 Filed 1-12-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900-AP57 Repayment by VA of Educational Loans for Certain Psychiatrists; Correction AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2016, a document amending its regulations concerning the repayment of educational loans for certain psychiatrists who agree to a period of obligated service with VA. The document contained several section and paragraph numbering errors. This document corrects the errors and does not make any substantive change to the content of the final rule.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Crystal Cruz, Deputy Director, Healthcare Talent Management (10A2A4), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (405) 552-4346. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    VA published a final rule in the Federal Register on September 29, 2016, which established into regulation Public Law 114-2, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act (Clay Hunt SAV Act), enacted on February 12, 2015. Section 4 of this Act establishes a pilot program for the repayment of educational loans for certain psychiatrists seeking employment in VA, which will be referred to as the Program for the Repayment of Educational Loans. The document contained several section and paragraph numbering errors, which will be corrected in this document. The DATES section of the final rule incorrectly cited § 17.644 as the section that contains the collection of information. We are amending the DATES section to correctly state § 17.643 as the section that contains the collection of information. No other edits are made to the DATES section. Section 17.643 had two paragraphs that were numbered (c)(2)(ii). We are now redesignating the second paragraph (c)(2)(ii) in § 17.643 as paragraph (c)(2)(iii). No other edits are made to § 17.643. Section 17.644 did not have a paragraph (a)(3) and was, therefore, marked as reserved. We are now redesignating paragraphs (a)(4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of § 17.644 as paragraphs (a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and (7). No other edits are made to § 17.644.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and Dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.

    Correction

    In the final rule document published on September 29, 2016, at 81 FR 66815, make the following correction:

    1. On page 66815, in the first column, in the DATES section, remove “§ 17.644” and add in its place “§ 17.643” to read as follows:

    DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on September 29, 2016, except for § 17.643 which contains information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. VA will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA is correcting 38 CFR part 17 by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 17—MEDICAL 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections. Sections 17.640 and 17.647 also issued under Pub. L. 114-2, sec. 4.

    Sections 17.641 through 17.646 also issued under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and Pub. L. 114-2, sec. 4.

    § 17.643 [Amended]
    2. In § 17.643, redesignate the second paragraph (c)(2)(ii) as paragraph (c)(2)(iii).
    § 17.644 [Amended]
    3. In § 17.644, redesignate paragraphs (a)(4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs (a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and (7). Dated: January 5, 2017. Janet Coleman, Chief, Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00232 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Part 1022 [Docket No. EP 716 (Sub-No. 2)] Civil Monetary Penalties—2017 Adjustment AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is issuing a final rule to implement the annual inflationary adjustment to its civil monetary penalties, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective January 17, 2017, and is applicable beginning January 13, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Fancher: (202) 245-0355. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), passed as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, requires agencies to adjust their civil penalties for inflation annually, beginning on January 15, 2017, and no later than January 15 of every year thereafter. In accordance with the 2015 Act, annual inflation adjustments will be based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for October of the previous year and the October CPI-U of the year before that. Penalty level adjustments should be rounded to the nearest dollar.

    II. Discussion

    The statutory definition of civil monetary penalty covers various civil penalty provisions under the Rail (Part A), Motor Carriers, Water Carriers, Brokers, and Freight Forwarders (Part B), and Pipeline Carriers (Part C) provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the ICC Termination Act of 1995. The Board's civil (and criminal) penalty authority related to rail transportation appears at 49 U.S.C. 11901-11908. The Board's penalty authority related to motor carriers, water carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders appears at 49 U.S.C. 14901-14915. The Board's penalty authority related to pipeline carriers appears at 49 U.S.C. 16101-16106.1 The Board has regulations at 49 CFR pt. 1022, which codify the method set forth in the 2015 Act for annually adjusting for inflation the civil monetary penalties within the Board's jurisdiction.2

    1 The Board also has criminal penalty authority, enforceable in a federal criminal court. Congress has not, however, authorized federal agencies to adjust statutorily-prescribed criminal penalty provisions for inflation, and this rule does not address those provisions.

    2 The current statutory civil penalties were set through an interim final rule, Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule, EP 716 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Oct. 20, 2016). In that decision, the Board issued a “catch-up adjustment” for its civil monetary penalties as mandated by the 2015 Act.

    As set forth in this final rule, the Board is amending 49 CFR pt. 1022 so that its regulations and civil monetary penalties conform to the requirements of the 2015 Act. The adjusted penalties set forth in the rule will apply only to violations which occur after the effective date of this regulation.

    In accordance with the 2015 Act, the annual adjustment adopted here is calculated by multiplying each current penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment factor of 1.01636, which reflects the percentage change between the October 2016 CPI-U (724.113) and the October 2015 CPI-U (712.458). The table at the end of this decision shows the relevant statutory provision of each civil penalty and a description, the current baseline statutory civil penalty level, and the adjusted statutory civil penalty level for 2017.

    III. Final Rule

    The final rule is set forth at the end of this decision. This final rule is issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), does not require that process “when the agency for good cause finds” that public notice and comment are “unnecessary.” Here, Congress has mandated that the agency make the inflation adjustment to its civil monetary penalties. The Board has no discretion to set alternative levels of adjusted civil monetary penalties, because the amount of the inflation adjustment must be calculated in accordance with the statutory formula. The Board simply determines the amount of inflation adjustments by performing technical, ministerial computations. Because the Board has no discretion to do anything except promulgate the rule and perform ministerial computations to apply it, the Board has determined that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without soliciting public comment and to make this regulation effective immediately upon publication.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Statement

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare 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. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1022

    Administrative practice and procedures, Brokers, Civil penalties, Freight forwarders, Motor carriers, Pipeline carriers, Rail carriers, Water carriers.

    It is ordered:

    1. The Board amends its rules as set forth in this decision. Notice of the final rule will be published in the Federal Register.

    2. This decision is effective on its date of service.

    Decided: January 9, 2017.

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

    Kenyatta Clay, Clearance Clerk.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1022 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 1022—CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENT 1. The authority citation for part 1022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 551-557; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 49 U.S.C. 11901, 14901, 14903, 14904, 14905, 14906, 14907, 14908, 14910, 14915, 16101, 16103.

    2. Revise § 1022.4(b) to read as follows:
    § 1022.4 Cost-of-living adjustments of civil monetary penalties.

    (b) The cost-of-living adjustment required by the statute results in the following adjustments to the civil monetary penalties within the jurisdiction of the Board:

    U.S. code citation Civil monetary penalty description Baseline
  • penalty amount
  • Adjusted
  • penalty amount
  • (2017)
  • Rail Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. 11901(a) Unless otherwise specified, maximum penalty for each knowing violation under this part, and for each day $7,512 $7,635 49 U.S.C. 11901(b) For each violation under § 11124(a)(2) or (b) 751 763 49 U.S.C. 11901(b) For each day violation continues 38 39 49 U.S.C. 11901(c) Maximum penalty for each knowing violation under §§ 10901-10906 7,512 7,635 49 U.S.C. 11901(d) For each violation under §§ 11123 or 11124(a)(1) 150-751 152-763 49 U.S.C. 11901(d) For each day violation continues 75 76 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(1) For each violation under §§ 11141-11145 751 763 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(2) For each violation under § 11144(b)(1) 150 152 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(3-4) For each violation of reporting requirements, for each day 150 152 Motor and Water Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) Minimum penalty for each violation and for each day 1,028 1,045 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) For each violation under §§ 13901 or 13902(c) 10,282 10,450 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) For each violation related to transportation of passengers 25,705 26,126 49 U.S.C. 14901(b) For each violation of the hazardous waste rules under § 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 20,564-41,128 20,900-41,801 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(1) Minimum penalty for each violation of household good regulations, and for each day 1,502 1,527 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(2) Minimum penalty for each instance of transportation of household goods if broker provides estimate without carrier agreement 15,025 15,271 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(3) Minimum penalty for each instance of transportation of household goods without being registered 37,561 38,175 49 U.S.C. 14901(e) Minimum penalty for each violation of a transportation rule 3,005 3,054 49 U.S.C. 14901(e) Minimum penalty for each additional violation 7,512 7,635 49 U.S.C. 14903(a) Maximum penalty for undercharge or overcharge of tariff rate, for each violation 150,245 152,703 49 U.S.C. 14904(a) For first violation, rebates at less than the rate in effect 300 305 49 U.S.C. 14904(a) For all subsequent violations 376 382 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(1) Maximum penalty for first violation for undercharges by freight forwarders 751 763 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(1) Maximum penalty for subsequent violations 3,005 3,054 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(2) Maximum penalty for other first violations under § 13702 751 763 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(2) Maximum penalty for subsequent violations 3,005 3,054 49 U.S.C. 14905(a) Maximum penalty for each knowing violation of § 14103(a), and knowingly authorizing, consenting to, or permitting a violation of § 14103(a) & (b) 15,025 15,271 49 U.S.C. 14906 Minimum penalty for first attempt to evade regulation 2,056 2,090 49 U.S.C. 14906 Minimum amount for each subsequent attempt to evade regulation 5,141 5,225 49 U.S.C. 14907 Maximum penalty for recordkeeping/reporting violations 7,512 7,635 49 U.S.C. 14908(a)(2) Maximum penalty for violation of § 14908(a)(1) 3,005 3,054 49 U.S.C. 14910 When another civil penalty is not specified under this part, for each violation, for each day 751 763 49 U.S.C. 14915(a)(1) & (2) Minimum penalty for holding a household goods shipment hostage, for each day 11,940 12,135 Pipeline Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. 16101(a) Maximum penalty for violation of this part, for each day 7,512 7,635 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(1) & (4) For each recordkeeping violation under § 15722, each day 751 763 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(2) & (4) For each inspection violation liable under § 15722, each day 150 152 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(3) & (4) For each reporting violation under § 15723, each day 150 152 49 U.S.C. 16103(a) Maximum penalty for improper disclosure of information 1,502 1,527
    [FR Doc. 2017-00690 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    82 10 Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0022] RIN 0579-AE29 Importation of Hass Avocados From Colombia AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are reopening the comment period for a proposed rule to allow the importation of Hass avocados from Colombia into the continental United States. We are also notifying the public of the availability of a revised pest risk assessment and risk management document associated with the proposed rule. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published on October 27, 2016 (81 FR 74722) is reopened. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0022.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comments to Docket No. APHIS-2016-0022, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0022 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, USDA/APHIS/PPQ, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2103; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 27, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 74722-74727, Docket No. APHIS-2016-0022) a proposed rule to authorize the importation of Hass avocados from Colombia into the continental United States.

    The pest risk assessment (PRA) that we used in order to draft the risk management document (RMD) associated with the rule, as well as the rule itself, considered Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), pink hibiscus mealybug, to be a pest of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of Hass avocados from Colombia to the continental United States. However, this PRA was not the latest iteration that had been prepared. Rather, a subsequent iteration found that growing conditions for Hass avocados in Colombia, as well as standard packinghouse practices used in Colombia to prepare Hass avocados for export for commercial distribution, effectively preclude pink hibiscus mealybug from following the pathway of Hass avocados from Colombia to the continental United States.

    We are making the more recent version of the PRA available for public review and comment, as well as a revised version of the RMD that reflects this change. Because there were no pink hibiscus mealybug-specific provisions in the proposed rule, however, we do not consider it necessary to modify the provisions of the proposed rule.

    Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before December 27, 2016. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2016-0022 for an additional 30 days. We will also consider all comments received between December 28, 2016, and the date of this notice. This action will allow interested persons additional time to review the new PRA and RMD, and prepare and submit comments.

    Authority:

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of January, 2017. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00672 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9344; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-7] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Atlantic City, NJ AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Atlantic City, NJ, as Atlantic City Municipal/Bader Field has closed, requiring airspace reconfiguration at Atlantic City International Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations Atlantic City International Airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2016-9344; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9344; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Atlantic City International Airport, due to the closing of Atlantic City Municipal/Bader Field from the airspace description as the airport has closed, no longer requiring controlled airspace.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6003 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6003. Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class C Surface Area. AEA NJ E3 Atlantic City, NJ [Amended] Atlantic City International Airport, NJ (Lat. 39°27′27″ N., long. 74°34′38″ W.) Atlantic City VORTAC (Lat. 39°27′21″ N., long. 74°34′35″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles either side of the Atlantic City VORTAC 303° radial extending from the 5-mile radius to 7.4 miles northwest of Atlantic City International Airport.

    Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA NJ E5 Atlantic City, NJ [Amended] Atlantic City International Airport, NJ (Lat. 39°27′27″ N., long. 74°34′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Atlantic City International Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 29, 2016. Debra L. Hogan, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00302 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Part 133 [USCBP-2016-0076] RIN 1515-AE21 Donations of Technology and Support Services To Enforce Intellectual Property Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document proposes amendments to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations pertaining to the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Specifically, CBP is proposing amendments to implement a section of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 which requires CBP to prescribe regulatory procedures for the donation of technologies, training, or other support services for the purpose of assisting CBP in intellectual property enforcement. The proposed regulations would enhance CBP's intellectual property rights enforcement capabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by one of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments via Docket No. USCBP-2016-0076.

    Mail: Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Garrett D. Wright, Chief, Donations Acceptance Program, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, telephone (202) 344-2344.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rulemaking. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the proposed rulemaking, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that supports such recommended change. See ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments.

    Background

    The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA), Public Law 114-125, 130 Stat. 122 (19 U.S.C. 4301 note), enacted February 24, 2016, includes an assortment of trade facilitation and trade enforcement provisions, including several that focus on improving CBP's intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement at the border. Section 308(d) of the TFTEA requires the Commissioner of CBP to prescribe regulations that will enable CBP to receive donations of technologies, training, and other support services for the purpose of assisting CBP in detecting and identifying imports that infringe intellectual property rights.

    In House Report 114-114, the House Ways and Means Committee stated that CBP should take steps to ensure that personnel dedicated to enforcement of IPR are effectively trained to detect and identify infringing imports. The Committee noted that much of the expertise in this area lies within the private sector, and that companies are most knowledgeable about their products and can provide valuable training to CBP on detection. H.R. 114-114 at 76.

    Discussion of Proposed Amendments New Subpart H to Part 133—Donations of Intellectual Property Rights Technology and Support Services § 133.61

    This document proposes to implement section 308(d) of the TFTEA by promulgating a new subpart H to part 133 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled “[D]onations of Intellectual Property Rights Technology and Support Services,” which would provide for the receipt and acceptance by CBP of donations of hardware, software, equipment, and similar technologies, as well as training and support services, for the purpose of assisting CBP in enforcing IPR. It is also proposed to add and reserve subpart G to part 133.

    New subpart H, as set forth in proposed new § 133.61, prescribes the methods by which donations of IPR technology and support services may be made. Specifically, proposed 19 CFR 133.61(a) sets forth the scope of this section and identifies the relevant authority. Proposed 19 CFR 133.61(b) prescribes the conditions applicable to a donation offer and provides that CBP will notify the donor, in writing, if additional information is requested or if CBP has determined that it will not accept the donation. In this regard, it is noted that CBP will take into consideration all aspects of the proposed donation offer, including whether such offer would pose a real or potential conflict between the interests of the donor and the interests of the government. Proposed 19 CFR 133.61(c) provides that if CBP elects to accept a donation offer, CBP will enter into a signed, written agreement with an authorized representative of the donating entity that commemorates all applicable terms and conditions, and that an agreement to accept training and other support services must provide that the services or training are offered without the expectation of payment and that the service provider expressly waives any future claims against the government.

    Authority To Accept Donations

    As noted above, pursuant to section 308(d) of the TFTEA, CBP is required to prescribe regulatory procedures for donations of hardware, software, equipment, and similar technologies, as well as training and support services, for the purpose of assisting CBP in enforcing IPR.

    Acceptance of such donations must also be consistent with either section 482 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by section 2 of the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-279), or section 507 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-90).

    Section 482 of the Homeland Security Act replaced section 559 of Title V of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76) and permits CBP, in consultation with the General Services Administration (GSA), to “enter into an agreement with any entity to accept a donation of personal property, money, or nonpersonal services” to be used for certain CBP activities at most ports of entry where CBP performs inspection services. Generally speaking, donations may be used for certain activities of CBP's Office of Field Operations, including expenses related to “(A) furniture, equipment, or technology, including the installation or deployment of such items; and (B) the operation and maintenance of such furniture, fixtures, equipment or technology.” Section 482(a)(3). To implement section 482, CBP will build upon its experience in implementing section 559 of Title V of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, where CBP and the GSA issued the Section 559 Donation Acceptance Authority Proposal Evaluation Procedures & Criteria Framework in October, 2014.1 Pursuant to Section 482(c)(3), CBP in consultation with GSA will establish criteria for evaluating donation proposals under Section 482 and make such criteria publicly available.

    1https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/section-559-donation-acceptance-authority-proposal-evaluation-procedures-and. Section 483 of the Homeland Security Act, as amended by the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act, also exempts from section 482 existing agreements entered into pursuant to section 559, as well as proposals already accepted for consideration by CBP.

    Donations that may not be accepted under section 482 may be considered under section 507 of the DHS Appropriations Act of 2004. Section 507 of the DHS Appropriations Act of 2004 made the DHS Gifts and Donations account (formerly the Federal Emergency Management Agency “Bequests and Gifts” account) “available to the Department of Homeland Security . . . for the Secretary of Homeland Security to accept, hold, administer and utilize gifts and bequests, including property, to facilitate the work of the Department of Homeland Security.” Title V, Public Law 108-90, 117 Stat. 1153-1154. DHS policy on the acceptance of gifts pursuant to section 507 is contained in DHS Directive 112-02 and DHS Instruction 112-02-001. The Secretary of DHS delegated the authority to accept and utilize gifts to the heads of certain DHS components, including the Commissioner of CBP, in DHS Delegation 0006.

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866

    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 proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation.

    This rule proposes amendments to the CBP regulations that would prescribe procedures for the voluntary donation of technology, training, and other support services for the purpose of assisting CBP in enforcing IPR, as required by section 308(d) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-125, 130 Stat. 122 (19 U.S.C. 4301 note). These donations would improve CBP's knowledge of intellectual property and improve its ability to detect infringing articles and prevent their importation.

    Because donations under this rule would be voluntary, CBP assumes that entities would only make donations if they believe it is in their best interest to do so. The cost of the donation itself, including any training provided, would vary greatly depending on the particulars of the donation. Due to a lack of data on the types of donations that entities would offer as a result of this rulemaking, CBP is unable to estimate the cost of these donations to the public. In addition to the cost of the donated product or training itself, donors would bear some paperwork related costs with this rule. Under this rule, if finalized, entities must submit an offer of a donation in writing to CBP and provide all pertinent details regarding the scope, purpose, expected benefits, intended use, estimated costs, and proposed conditions of the donation. Based on discussions with CBP's Office of Field Operations, CBP estimates that approximately 50 entities would make donations annually and that there would be one donation made per entity annually, for a total of 50 donations per year. CBP estimates that it would take an entity approximately 2 hours to write the offer of donation. In most cases, CBP believes that attorneys either employed or hired by the donor would write the offer of donation. Considering the median hourly wage of an attorney of $80.83,2 3 writing the offers of donation would result in a total annual time cost to donors of $8,083 ($80.83 * 2 hours * 50 written donation proposals). This would equate to a cost of $161.66 per entity. CBP again notes that this is a voluntary program, and entities would only provide donations if the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs.

    2 Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics, “May 2014 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, United States—Median Hourly Wage by Occupation Code: 23-1011.” Updated March 25, 2015. Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/oes231011.htm. Accessed June 15, 2015. CBP adjusted this figure, which was in 2014 U.S. dollars, to 2015 U.S. dollars by applying a 1.0 percent annual growth rate to the figure, as recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation's value of travel time guidance. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Policy. The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision 2 (2015 Update), “Table 4 (Revision 2-corrected): Recommended Hourly Values of Travel Time Savings.” April 29, 2015. http://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Revised%20Departmental%20Guidance%20on%20Valuation%20of%20Travel%20Time%20in%20Economic%20Analysis.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2016.

    3 The total compensation to wages and salaries ratio is equal to the calculated average of the 2014 quarterly estimates (shown under Mar., June, Sep., Dec.) of the total compensation cost per hour worked for Professional and Related occupations (49.69) divided by the calculated average of the 2014 quarterly estimates (shown under Mar., June, Sep., Dec.) of wages and salaries cost per hour worked for the same occupation category (34.315). Source of total compensation to wages and salaries ratio data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Historical Listing March 2004-December 2015, “Table 3. Civilian workers, by occupational group: employer costs per hours worked for employee compensation and costs as a percentage of total compensation, 2004-2015 by Respondent Type: Professional and related occupations.” June 10, 2015. Available at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ececqrtn.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2015.

    In addition to donor costs, this rule would introduce a time cost to CBP to process each offer of donation. As with donor costs, CBP's cost to receive and learn about the donated article would depend on the particulars of the donation. Also, accepting the donation is voluntary on CBP's part and the agency would only accept the donation if it is in CBP's best interest to do so. In addition to CBP's costs associated with receiving and learning about the donated article, there are quantifiable costs to CBP related to evaluating the donation and making a decision on whether to accept it under the conditions provided. CBP estimates, at a minimum, the agency's evaluation time to be approximately 10 hours for each of the 50 donations made to CBP annually. CBP predicts that in most cases, each written offer of donation would be evaluated by five CBP employees. Based on the average hourly wage for a general CBP employee of $55.91,4 evaluating the 50 offers of donation each year would result in an annual time cost to CBP of $139,775.00 ($55.91 * 5 CBP employees * 10 hours * 50 written donation proposals). On average, each offer of donation would cost CBP $2,795.50 in evaluation time costs.

    4 CBP bases this wage on the FY 2015 salary and benefits of the national average of general, non-CBP Officer/frontline CBP positions, which is equal to a GS-12, Step 5. Source: Email correspondence with CBP's Office of Administration on June 25, 2015.

    In summary, this rule could result in a total quantifiable annual cost to the public of $8,083 and a total annual cost to CBP of $139,775.00. Additionally, the public would bear a cost equal to the value of the donation and CBP would bear a cost to accept the donation. As these costs would vary depending on the particulars of the donation, CBP is unable to quantify them in this analysis. Because donations are voluntary for both the donor and CBP, donations would presumably only occur if the benefits to each party outweigh the costs.

    Along with costs, the proposed rule would provide benefits to the donor and CBP. In particular, the proposed rule would enhance CBP's IPR enforcement capabilities by making donations of authentication devices, equipment, and training available to CBP personnel. This would help protect the entities making donations from the illegal importation of IPR-infringing products. The value of this benefit would vary depending on how much an entity believes IPR enforcement would improve because of its donation. As stated earlier, an entity would only make the donation if it believes the benefits of improved IPR enforcement outweigh the costs.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people).

    This proposed rule, if finalized, would allow entities to voluntarily donate technology, training, and other support services to improve CBP's ability to enforce IPR potentially related to their goods. As any entity with intellectual property could make these donations, this rule may affect a substantial number of small entities. However, this rule imposes no new obligations on entities, including those considered small. Any small entity that chooses to make these donations would presumably do so because it believes the benefits of donating exceed the costs. Therefore, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Given these reasons, CBP certifies that this rule, if finalized, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. CBP invites public comments on this determination.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    An agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

    OMB approved collection 1651-0123 will be amended to reflect a new information collection proposed by this rule for written offers of donations to CBP of technology, training, and other support services in accordance with 19 CFR 133.61(b). CBP estimates that this rule would result in 50 responses each year and 100 burden hours to respondents annually. The new information collection would reflect the burden hours for each written offer of donation provided to CBP as follows:

    Estimated number of annual respondents: 50.

    Estimated number of annual responses: 50.

    Estimated time burden per response: 2 hours.

    Estimated total annual time burden: 100 hours.

    Signing Authority

    This proposed regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of his delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.

    List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 133

    Circumvention devices, Copying or simulating trademarks, Copyrights, Counterfeit goods, Customs duties and inspection, Detentions, Donations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted merchandise, Seizures and forfeitures, Technology, Trademarks, Trade names, Support services.

    Proposed Amendments to Part 133 of the CBP Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, CBP proposes to amend 19 CFR part 133 as set forth below:

    PART 133—TRADEMARKS, TRADE NAMES, AND COPYRIGHTS 1. The general authority citation for part 133 continues, and the specific authority for new subpart H is added, to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1124, 1125, 1127; 17 U.S.C. 101, 601, 602, 603; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202, 1499, 1526, 1624; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    Section 133.61 also issued under Sec. 308(d), Pub. L. 114-125; Sec. 507, Pub. L. 108-90; Sec. 2, Pub. L. 114-279.

    Subpart G—[Reserved]. 2. Add and reserve subpart G. 3. Add subpart H, consisting of § 133.61, to read as follows: Subpart H—Donations of Intellectual Property Rights Technology and Support Services.
    § 133.61 Donations of intellectual property rights technology and support services.

    (a) Scope. The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is authorized to accept donations of hardware, software, equipment, and similar technologies, as well as donated support services and training, from private sector entities, for the purpose of assisting CBP in enforcing intellectual property rights. Such acceptance must be consistent with the conditions set forth in this section and section 308(d) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, as well as either section 482 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 or section 507 of the DHS Appropriations Act of 2004.

    (b) Donation offer. A donation offer must be submitted to CBP either via email, to [email protected], or mailed to the attention of the Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, or his/her designee. The donation offer must describe the proposed donation in sufficient detail to enable CBP to determine its compatibility with existing CBP technologies, networks, and facilities (e.g. operating system or similar requirements, power supply requirements, item size and weight, etc.). The donation offer must also include information pertaining to the donation's scope, purpose, expected benefits, intended use, costs, and attached conditions, as applicable, that is sufficient to enable CBP to evaluate the donation and make a determination as to whether to accept it. CBP will notify the donor, in writing, if additional information is requested or if CBP has determined that it will not accept the donation.

    (c) Agreement to accept donation. If CBP accepts a donation of hardware, software, equipment, technologies, or to accept training and other support services, for the purpose of enforcing intellectual property rights, CBP will enter into a signed, written agreement with an authorized representative of the donor. The agreement must contain all applicable terms and conditions of the donation. An agreement to accept training and other support services must provide that the services or training are offered without the expectation of payment, and that the service provider expressly waives any future claims against the government.

    R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner. Approved: January 09, 2017. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00653 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0096 (Formerly Docket No. 2007D-0494)] Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods: Revised Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods.” The revised draft guidance is intended for any person who is subject to our regulation entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food” and who manufactures, processes, packs, or holds ready-to-eat (RTE) foods. The revised draft guidance is intended to help such persons comply with the requirements of that regulation with respect to measures that can significantly minimize or prevent the contamination of RTE food with L. monocytogenes whenever a RTE food is exposed to the environment prior to packaging and the packaged food does not receive a treatment or otherwise include a control measure (such as a formulation lethal to L. monocytogenes) that would significantly minimize L. monocytogenes.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that we consider your comment on the draft guidance before we issue the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://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 https://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-2008-D-0096 for “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the revised draft guidance to the Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-300), 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the revised draft guidance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jenny Scott, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2166.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods.” We are issuing the revised draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The revised draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    In the Federal Register of February 7, 2008 (73 FR 7293), we made available a draft guidance for industry entitled “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Refrigerated or Frozen Ready-To-Eat Foods” (the 2008 draft Listeria guidance). The recommendations in the 2008 draft Listeria guidance were intended to complement the requirements in a regulation entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Human Food,” which had been established in part 110 (21 CFR part 110). The recommendations in the 2008 draft Listeria guidance also were intended to assist processors of refrigerated and frozen RTE foods in meeting the requirements in part 110 with respect to the control of L. monocytogenes. We gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by April 7, 2008, for us to consider before beginning work on the final version of the guidance. We received several comments on the 2008 draft Listeria guidance.

    Since issuing the 2008 draft Listeria guidance, we conducted rulemaking to amend the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements in part 110 to modernize them and establish them in new part 117 (21 CFR part 117), subparts A, B, and F (80 FR 55908, September 17, 2015). Part 117 (entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food”) also includes new requirements (in subparts A, C, D, E, F, and G) for domestic and foreign facilities that are required to register under section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350d) to establish and implement hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls for human food (the human food preventive controls requirements). The new human food preventive controls requirements are part of our implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA; Pub. L. 111-353). We also discussed certain recommendations in the 2008 draft Listeria guidance with our Food Advisory Committee during a meeting held on December 7 and 8, 2015 (80 FR 69229, November 9, 2015 and Ref. 1).

    We have revised the 2008 draft Listeria guidance to reflect the comments we received on that draft guidance, the amended CGMP requirements now established in part 117, the new human food preventive controls requirements established in part 117, and the recommendations of our Food Advisory Committee (Ref. 2). The revised draft guidance is intended to explain our current thinking on procedures and practices to help food establishments that are subject to part 117 to: (1) Comply with the CGMP requirements of part 117 (e.g., for personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment and utensils, and production and process controls) during the production of an RTE food that is exposed to the environment prior to packaging and the packaged food does not receive a treatment or otherwise include a control measure (such as a formulation lethal to L. monocytogenes) that would significantly minimize L. monocytogenes; and (2) comply with certain human food preventive controls requirements regarding environmental pathogens in such RTE foods.

    Part 117 defines “environmental pathogen” to mean a pathogen capable of surviving and persisting within the manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding environment such that food may be contaminated and may result in foodborne illness if that food is consumed without treatment to significantly minimize the environmental pathogen (21 CFR 117.3). Within that definition, L. monocytogenes is listed as an example of an environmental pathogen. The hazard analysis required by part 117 must include an evaluation of environmental pathogens whenever an RTE food is exposed to the environment prior to packaging and the packaged food does not receive a treatment or otherwise include a control measure (such as a formulation lethal to the pathogen) that would significantly minimize the pathogen (§ 117.130(c)(1)(ii)). If the hazard analysis identifies L. monocytogenes as a hazard requiring a preventive control, the facility must identify one or more preventive controls to provide assurances that L. monocytogenes will be significantly minimized or prevented in the facility's food products and the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by the facility will not be adulterated under section 402 of the FD&C Act (§ 117.135(a)). In addition, the human food preventive controls requirements specify that, as appropriate to the facility, the food, and the nature of the preventive control and its role in the facility's food safety system, the facility must conduct activities that include environmental monitoring, for an environmental pathogen or for an appropriate indicator organism, if contamination of an RTE food with an environmental pathogen is a hazard requiring a preventive control, by collecting and testing environmental samples (§ 117.165(a)(3)). The revised draft guidance includes recommendations for controls to significantly minimize or prevent L. monocytogenes in RTE foods, for sanitation controls to eliminate L. monocytogenes from the food production environment, and for environmental monitoring as verification of sanitation controls.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The revised draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 117 have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0751.

    FDA tentatively concludes that the revised draft guidance also contains proposed information collection provisions that are subject to review by OMB under the PRA but are not included in the information collection approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0751. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register for each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we will publish a 60-day notice on the proposed collection of information in a future issue of the Federal Register.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the revised draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    IV. References

    The following references are on display at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. FDA. 2015. Food Advisory Committee Meeting, Charge and Questions. Topic: Addressing Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods, December 7-8, 2015. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM472842.pdf. 2. FDA. 2015. Food Advisory Committee (FAC) Recommendations. Topic: Addressing Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods, December 7-8, 2015. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/FoodAdvisoryCommittee/UCM476521.pdf. Dated: January 11, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00819 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 141 and 143 [EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0680; FRL-9958-23-OW] RIN 2040-AF55 Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to make conforming changes to existing drinking water regulations based on the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011 (RLDWA) and the Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 (CFSA). Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) prohibits the use and introduction into commerce of certain plumbing products that are not lead free. The RLDWA revised the definition of lead free to lower the allowable maximum lead content from 8.0 percent to a weighted average of 0.25 percent of the wetted surfaces of plumbing products and established a statutory method for calculating lead content. In addition, the RLDWA created exemptions from the lead free requirements for plumbing products that are used exclusively for nonpotable services as well as for other specified products. The CFSA further amended section 1417 to exempt fire hydrants from these requirements.

    EPA proposes to establish new requirements to assure that individuals purchasing, installing or inspecting potable water systems can identify lead free plumbing materials. Specifically, EPA proposes to establish labeling requirements to differentiate plumbing products that meet the lead free requirements from those that are exempt from the lead free requirements and to require manufacturers to certify compliance with the lead free requirements. These proposed requirements would reduce inadvertent use of non-lead free plumbing products in potable use applications and, consequently, reduce exposure to lead in drinking water and associated adverse health effects.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0680, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system).

    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Russ Perkinson, telephone number: 202-564-4901; email address: [email protected], Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division (4607), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Abbreviations and Acronyms AFS—American Foundries Society ANSI—American National Standards Institute CFSA—Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 CFR—Code of Federal Regulations FAQs—Frequently Asked Questions O&M—Operations and Maintenance NAICS—North American Industry Classification System NSF—NSF International PMI—Plumbing Manufacturers International RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act RLDWA—Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011 SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act SIC—Standard Industrial Classification UL—Underwriters Laboratories Table of Contents I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What action is EPA taking? C. What is EPA's authority for taking this action? D. What are the costs and benefits of this action? II. Background III. Summary of Data Used A. Characterization of the Affected Industry B. Determining Baseline Industry Practices and Potential Costs of Compliance IV. Proposed Regulatory Provisions A. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Rule B. Labeling of Potable Use Products C. Exempt Products D. Product Certification E. Other Regulatory Requirements and Clarifications F. Implementation V. Costs A. Initial Administrative and Initial Implementation Costs B. Labeling Potable Use Products C. Labeling Products Eligible for the “Used Exclusively” Exemption D. Product Certification E. Response to EPA Data Request Costs F. Other Regulatory Requirements and Clarifications VI. Economic Impacts Analysis A. Annualized Social Costs Estimates B. Economic Impacts—Cost-to-Revenue Analysis VII. Benefits VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews IX. References I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    The statutory prohibitions on use and introduction into commerce of certain products that are not lead free codified by this rule apply to “any person” as defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This rule implementing those provisions applies to any person who would introduce plumbing products into commerce, such as manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, distributors, re-sellers, retailers, and to any person who would use plumbing products in a public water system or in a residential or non-residential facility providing water for human consumption. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing this regulation to codify revisions to the SDWA prohibition on use and introduction into commerce of certain products that are not lead free (hereafter termed the SDWA lead prohibitions) as enacted in the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011 (RLDWA) and the Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 (CFSA). EPA is also proposing requirements to certify and label plumbing products introduced into commerce to assure they are lead free.

    SDWA 1417(a)(1) prohibits the “use of any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, any solder, or any flux in the installation or repair of any public water system; or any plumbing in a residential or non-residential facility providing water for human consumption, that is not lead free” as defined in section 1417(d). Section 1417(a)(3) provides that “it shall be unlawful (A) for any person to introduce into commerce any pipe, or any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, that is not lead free, except for a pipe that is used in manufacturing or industrial processing; (B) for any person engaged in the business of selling plumbing supplies, except manufacturers, to sell solder or flux that is not lead free; or (C) for any person to introduce into commerce any solder or flux that is not lead free unless the solder or flux bears a prominent label stating that it is illegal to use the solder or flux in the installation or repair of any plumbing providing water for human consumption.”

    The 2011 RLDWA revised section 1417 to redefine lead free in SDWA section 1417(d) to lower the maximum lead content from 8.0 percent to a weighted average of 0.25 percent of the wetted surfaces of plumbing products; established a statutory method for the calculation of lead content; and eliminated the requirement that lead free products be in compliance with voluntary standards established in accordance with SDWA 1417(e) for leaching of lead from new plumbing fittings and fixtures. In addition, the RLDWA created exemptions in SDWA section 1417(a)(4) from the prohibitions on the use or introduction into commerce for “pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, or fixtures, including backflow preventers, that are used exclusively for nonpotable services such as manufacturing, industrial processing, irrigation, outdoor watering, or any other uses where the water is not anticipated to be used for human consumption” (SDWA 1417(a)(4)(A)), as well as for “toilets, bidets, urinals, fill valves, flushometer valves, tub fillers, shower valves, service saddles, or water distribution main gate valves that are 2 inches in diameter or larger.” (SDWA 1417(a)(4)(B)). The CFSA further amended section 1417 to exempt fire hydrants.

    In addition to codifying the revised requirements under RLDWA and CFSA, EPA is proposing product certification requirements and data gathering authorities to ensure consistent implementation and enforcement of the SDWA lead prohibition, as well as new labeling requirements to assure that individuals purchasing, installing or inspecting potable water systems can identify lead free plumbing materials. Specifically, EPA proposes to establish labeling requirements to differentiate plumbing products that meet the lead free requirements from those that are exempt from the lead free requirements and to require manufacturers to certify compliance with the lead free requirements. These proposed requirements would reduce inadvertent use of non-lead free plumbing products in potable use applications and, consequently, reduce exposure to lead in drinking water and associated adverse health effects.

    The goals of these proposed regulatory provisions are to limit accidental lead exposure by clearly identifying those products to be used or not used for potable services; and to ensure that plumbing products that are identified as lead free for use in potable services meet the requirements of the SDWA lead prohibition.

    C. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    EPA's authority for this proposed rule is sections 1417, 1445 and 1450 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300j-6, 300j-4, and 300j-9. SDWA section 1417 authorizes the EPA Administrator to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out his/her functions under this subchapter.” EPA's current regulations (40 CFR 141.43) codify parts of section 1417 of the SDWA, but they do not reflect the current version of section 1417, as amended by the RLDWA and the CFSA. This proposed rule would amend those regulations to reflect the current law. In addition, because the RLDWA created exemptions from the use prohibition in section 1417(a)(1) and the introduction into commerce prohibition in section 1417(a)(3), EPA proposes additional regulations to aid in the implementation and enforcement of these prohibitions.

    D. What are the costs and benefits of this action?

    EPA conducted an incremental compliance cost analysis of this proposed rule. For detail on the cost analysis see sections V and VI of this notice. The Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2016) prepared for this proposed rule and available in the docket for this proposed rule contains the detailed description of the cost assessment. EPA did not conduct a quantified and monetized benefits analysis, but a qualitative discussion of the benefits attributable to this rule can be found in section VII and in the Technical Support Document.

    Total annualized costs for the proposed rule range from $12 million discounted at three percent to $18 million discounted at seven percent. These costs include administrative requirement costs, the cost to potable use product manufacturers for both labeling on the product and on the product's packaging, the cost to manufacturers employing the “used exclusively” exemption for package labeling indicating non-potable uses, third party and self-certification costs and the costs of responding to EPA data requests.

    The proposed rule would reduce inadvertent use of non-lead free plumbing products in potable use applications and, as a result, would reduce exposure to lead in drinking water. The benefits of this proposed rule would be the resulting incremental reduction in the adverse health effects of low doses of lead, which include adverse neurological, cardiovascular, renal, reproductive, developmental, immunological and carcinogenic effects.

    II. Background

    Lead can be introduced into drinking water by corrosion of plumbing products (pipes, pipe and plumbing fittings and fixtures, solder, and flux). Lead exposure causes damage to the brain and kidneys, and can interfere with the production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the body. The greatest risk associated with lead exposure is to infants, young children and pregnant women. Scientists have linked the effects of lead on the brain with lowered IQ in children.

    In 1986, Congress amended the SDWA to prohibit the use of pipes, solder or flux that are not “lead free” in public water systems or plumbing in facilities providing water for human consumption. At the time, lead free was defined as solder and flux with no more than 0.2 percent lead and pipes with no more than 8.0 percent lead.

    In 1996, Congress further amended the SDWA to prohibit the use of pipe and plumbing fittings and fixtures that are not lead free in the installation and repair of any public water system or plumbing in a facility providing water for human consumption. The 1996 amendments also required lead free plumbing fittings and fixtures (endpoint devices) to be in compliance with a lead leaching standard established in accordance with section 1417(e).

    The 1996 amendments also made it unlawful for any person to introduce into commerce any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting, or fixture that is not lead free, except for a pipe that is used in manufacturing or industrial processing. As amended in 1996, SDWA section 1417(a)(3)(B) prohibits “any person engaged in the business of selling plumbing supplies, except manufacturers, to sell solder or flux that is not lead free,” and SDWA section 1417(a)(3)(C) makes it unlawful “for any person to introduce into commerce any solder or flux that is not lead free unless the solder or flux bears a prominent label stating that it is illegal to use the solder or flux in the installation or repair of any plumbing of water for human consumption.”

    In 2011, Congress enacted the RLDWA. It revised the definition of lead free by lowering the allowable maximum lead content from 8.0 percent to a weighted average of 0.25 percent of the wetted surfaces of plumbing products. It also revised the definition of lead free to include a statutory method for the calculation of lead content, and eliminated the requirement that lead free products be in compliance with standards established in accordance with SDWA section 1417(e) for leaching of lead from new plumbing fittings and fixtures.

    The 2011 RLDWA also established two types of exemptions from the section 1417 prohibitions on the use or introduction into commerce of pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings or fixtures, solder or flux not meeting the statutory definition of lead free. One exemption is for pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings or fixtures, including backflow preventers, that are used exclusively for non-potable services, such as manufacturing, industrial processing, irrigation, outdoor watering, or any other uses where the water is not anticipated to be used for human consumption (SDWA 1417(a)(4)(A)). A second exemption was established for toilets, bidets, urinals, fill valves, flushometer valves, tub fillers, shower valves, service saddles, or water distribution main gate valves that are 2 inches in diameter or larger (SDWA 1417(a)(4)(B)). The RLDWA established a prospective effective date of January 4, 2014, which provided a three-year timeframe for affected parties to transition to the new requirements. The CFSA further amended SDWA section 1417 to exempt fire hydrants from the prohibitions otherwise applicable under that section.

    In anticipation of these changes taking effect, EPA provided a summary of the requirements of the lead ban provisions in SDWA section 1417 and answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to the amendments to assist manufacturers, retailers, plumbers and consumers in understanding the changes to the law (USEPA, 2013a). In this FAQ document, EPA stated its intention to further evaluate and refine the issues raised in the FAQ in a future rulemaking.

    III. Summary of Data Used A. Characterization of the Affected Industry

    A number of data sources were used in the characterization of the plumbing manufacturing industry. GMP Research, Inc., provided a report to EPA in 2014, which included data on the total number of both potable and non-potable plumbing products sold in 2013, distributed across 40 product subcategories, and the market share of the leading suppliers by each product subcategory that may be subject to EPA's proposed rule. These data were supplemented with information from a number of additional sources. Dun & Bradstreet data were obtained for those firms that were identified by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code classifications as potentially producing plumbing products that would be affected by the proposed rule. Additional data for plumbing manufacturers and fabricators were obtained from ThomasNet, a comprehensive online database that provides information on manufacturing firms in the United States. EPA also used NSF International's Certified Drinking Water System Components database, which provides a list of manufacturers who use NSF to certify their products to NSF/ANSI Standard 61, including the subset of products that are certified to Annex G of that standard. Additional information was gathered from the Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI) Web site, a plumbing industry trade association. EPA used data on the number of employees and annual receipts for firms from the U.S. Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses.

    Information used in the development of industry production growth was obtained from both the GMP Research, Inc., report and projections on United States housing growth from IHS Global Insight. The Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2016) contains more information and data sources used and is available in the docket.

    B. Determining Baseline Industry Practices and Potential Costs of Compliance

    EPA conducted calls with representatives of both the PMI and the American Foundries Society (AFS) industry associations and held a stakeholder webinar in 2015 in order to obtain information on current practice within the plumbing parts manufacturing industry, in regard to labeling of product packages, marking of the plumbing products themselves, and the technical feasibility and costs associated with making changes to product labeling and marking. Additionally, the two industry associations provided information to EPA on product identification methods, including the estimated percentage of products that currently include lead free identification and general cost information for modifications to package labeling and product marking. Information on the feasibility and time requirements for changing production molds in response to potential regulatory requirements was also discussed, along with plumbing product inventory turnover rates. The trade associations also provided information on the use and costs of third party certification in the industry.

    In addition, data were obtained from a number of independent geographically diverse tool and dye firms on the cost of mold modifications. EPA also contacted suppliers to obtain capital equipment and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs to allow the Agency to estimate the economic impact of potential new labeling requirements under the proposed rule. EPA also contacted the eight firms currently accredited to certify plumbing components for compliance with NSF/ANSI Standard 372, for information on the cost of certification and the technical process for testing and certifying products as meeting the standard.

    IV. Proposed Regulatory Provisions A. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Rule

    The statutory prohibition on the use or introduction into commerce of pipes, pipe and plumbing fittings, fixtures, solder and flux that are not lead free, and the corresponding requirements described in this proposal would apply to any person. “Person” is defined under the SDWA to include individuals; corporations; companies; associations; partnerships; municipalities; or state, federal or tribal agencies. The statutory ban on selling solder and flux that is not lead free applies only to “any person engaged in the business of selling plumbing supplies.” The use prohibition applies only to use in the “installation or repair” of any public water system or any plumbing in a residential or nonresidential facility or location that provides water for human consumption.

    EPA solicits comments on all aspects of the proposed approach set forth in this notice. EPA specifically solicits comments, information and data on the following topics:

    1. In order to clarify the requirements, set forth in the RLDWA and this proposal, EPA defined terms, such as “pipes,” “fittings,” “fixtures,” “solder,” “flux” and several subcategories of these components, which are terms used in the statute, but are not defined within section 1417 of the SDWA. EPA included these and other definitions to provide clarity to provisions of the proposed rule. EPA requests comment concerning the appropriateness of these definitions and any additional terms that should be defined, specifically terms describing exempt products included in section 1417(a)(4)(B) of the SDWA (e.g., water distribution main gate valve).

    2. Section 1461 of the SDWA defines lead free with respect to drinking water coolers to mean that “each part or component of the cooler which may come into contact with drinking water contains no more than 8 percent lead” except that any solder, flux or storage tank interior surface may not contain more than 0.2 percent lead. SDWA section 1461(2) also authorizes the Administrator to establish more stringent requirements for treating any part or component of a drinking water cooler as lead free “whenever he determines that any such part may constitute an important source of lead in drinking water.” A drinking water cooler is also a “fixture” under section 1417 of the SDWA; and, therefore, subject to the definition of lead free in section 1417. To give effect to both provisions, in practice, drinking water coolers would need to comply with the most restrictive of the requirements in sections 1417 and 1461 of the SDWA. For clarity, EPA could consider addressing the requirements of section 1461 in the final rule by inserting language such as: “In addition to the definitions of “lead-free” in § 143.12(a)(1) and (2), no drinking water cooler which contains any solder, flux, or storage tank interior surface which may come into contact with drinking water is lead free if the solder, flux, or storage tank interior surface contains more than 0.2 percent lead. Drinking water coolers must be manufactured such that each individual part or component that may come in contact with drinking water shall not contain more than 8 percent lead while still meeting the maximum 0.25 percent weighted average lead content of the wetted surfaces of the entire product.” Should EPA consider adding such a provision to the rule?

    3. The regulatory modifications in this proposal are designed, in part, to make the requirements set forth in section 1417 of the SDWA clearer and easier to implement and enforce in a consistent manner. Are additional clarifications needed to improve the regulation? If so, what specific clarifications are needed?

    B. Labeling Potable Use Products

    EPA evaluated several options concerning labeling of products that comply with the definition of lead free, including a requirement to label a product's packaging, physically marking a product, or a combination of both. EPA found that many manufacturers already utilize a combination of package and product labeling to inform product users that the products comply with the RLDWA and several similar state laws. In an effort to reduce consumer confusion and establish a consistent labeling scheme for these products, EPA proposes to require that all lead free products be labeled on the package, container or tag, as well as marked directly on the product, unless the product is too small for a legible marking (in a type approximately 8 point to 14 point depending on the method of marking and roughness of product surface). Direct product marking to indicate lead free status will assist building inspectors in verifying that installations are in compliance with plumbing codes and allow for identification of products if they become separated from packaging prior to installation. Separation from packaging is likely to occur when used products are salvaged and sold or reused. After a product has been installed, a marking on the product itself will aid inspectors in identifying products that are lead free. In the long term, product marking to indicate lead free status will help the metals recycling industry segregate scrap materials that may be used to produce future products with low lead content.

    This proposal provides that products that are too small to be marked on the product would be exempt from product marking, but would still need to comply with package, container or tag labeling. Also, when marking a product directly, the manufacturer should, to the extent practical, locate the marking in an area where it would be visible after installation. For those products where visual aesthetics is a factor in marketing and selling the product, the manufacturer may locate the marking in a manner that will not negatively impact the design.

    EPA is not proposing a specific phrase be required on products or packages, but rather a performance standard that the phrase clearly conveys to users that the product is in compliance with the lead free requirements of the SDWA. The proposed regulation would include these examples of acceptable phrases for packaging: “This product conforms to the lead free requirements of the SDWA,” or “Lead Free.” Examples of acceptable product markings include: “Lead Free,” “LF,” or appropriate third party certification markings such as NSF/ANSI 372.

    The requirements EPA proposes for lead free products will ensure that purchasers of plumbing products do not inadvertently use products that are not lead free, or re-introduce them into commerce for potable applications (e.g., in the case of a distributor, wholesale supplier, retailer). In addition to the package and product labeling requirement set forth in this proposal, EPA also considered requiring that either the product be marked or the package be labeled, but not both. While this option would decrease the costs and burden on the manufacturer responsible for labeling and marking, EPA is concerned that this option may not provide consumers and others (such as building inspectors) with the information needed to determine that a product is lead free after its initial purchase and installation. If a product is removed from its packaging and stored prior to installation, or if a regulatory body is looking for confirmation after installation that the product meets the lead free requirements, the package labeling would likely be insufficient. Similarly, labeling of a product that is sold in an unlabeled package could also lead to the inadvertent installation of products that did not meet the new definition of lead free for potable purposes. For those reasons, labels on both the package and product are more appropriate (unless the product is too small for a label).

    EPA solicits comments on all aspects of the proposed approach set forth above. In addition, EPA specifically solicits comments, information and data on the following topics:

    1. Whether the rule should require the specific phrase “lead free” on package labeling and product markings rather than allowing some discretion in the use of phrases.

    2. Whether an alternative specific phrase should be required for product and package labeling and, if so, what phrase.

    3. If a specific phrase such as “lead free” were required, what period of time should be allowed for a transition period to enable manufacturers to modify their product and packaging to incorporate such phrase?

    4. If products were required to use a specific phrase such as “lead free,” whether that specific phrase should be required on both the package label and product marking or whether an abbreviated message should instead be allowed on the product.

    5. Whether the rule should allow for either package labeling or product marking rather than package labeling and product marking.

    6. Whether the rule should require any package labeling or product marking.

    C. Exempt Products

    As a result of the exemptions created by the RLDWA, there will be plumbing products in the marketplace that are not required to meet the definition of lead free in section 1417(d) of the SDWA. Therefore, without appropriate labeling, there is a risk that non-lead free products will be inadvertently used in potable water applications or re-introduced into commerce for potable applications. There are several points along the distribution chain where EPA anticipates a non-lead free product could be mistakenly identified as a lead free product, including the initial sale of the product and at the time of installation.

    Prior to the RLDWA, all plumbing devices were required to contain less than 8.0 percent lead, and certain endpoint devices (e.g., faucets) were required to meet additional standards for lead leaching. The exemptions created in the RLDWA allow for certain pipes, fittings and fixtures to be sold with no limit to the amount of lead they contain.

    One of the exemptions allows the use and introduction into commerce of pipes, fittings and fixtures that are used exclusively for nonpotable services. EPA has determined that a plumbing product that is physically incompatible with potable drinking water systems, rendering it impossible to be used for potable service, qualifies for this exemption.

    In addition, EPA also proposes a second option for manufacturers to demonstrate that their product is “used exclusively” for nonpotable services and therefore eligible for this exemption (hereafter referred to in this notice as the “used exclusively” exemption). As EPA explained in the RLDWA FAQs, EPA would generally consider pipes, fittings or fixtures to be used exclusively for nonpotable services if they are marketed and sold for use in nonpotable services, and prominently and clearly labeled as illegal for use in potable services and not anticipated for use with water for human consumption. This proposal would codify that interpretation of this exemption by allowing the use of a package label (or the product marking for those products sold without an external package) clearly identifying the product as not for use with water for human consumption. A package label, combined with the labeling requirements for products that must meet the lead free requirements (i.e., package labeling and product marking described in section VI.B of this document and described in § 143.17 of this proposed rule), should provide consumers with sufficient information to determine which plumbing products are designed for use with potable water systems; thus significantly reducing the likelihood of improperly installing a non-lead free product.

    The products specifically listed as exempt in SDWA section 1417(a)(4)(B) would not be subject to these labeling requirements or any of the other requirements of this proposal. These products are exempt from the requirements of this proposal: Toilets, bidets, urinals, fill valves, flushometer valves, tub fillers, fire hydrants, shower valves, service saddles or water distribution main gate valves that are 2 inches in diameter or larger.

    In addition to the specific plumbing devices excluded in the SDWA, EPA is also proposing to exclude clothes washing machines, fire suppression sprinklers, eyewash devices, sump pumps and emergency drench showers, because EPA is not aware of any potable use for these specific products.

    EPA solicits comments on all aspects of the proposed approach set forth above. EPA specifically solicits comments, information and data on the following topics:

    1. This proposal includes two methods of qualifying for the “used exclusively for non-potable exemption:” (a) the product is physically incompatible with potable water systems, or (b) the packaging is clearly labeled that it is not for use for water for human consumption. Are the criteria listed above appropriate for qualifying for the “used exclusively” exemption or are there different or additional criteria that EPA should consider?

    2. Is there any reason EPA should not extend the used exclusively for non-potable services exemption to plumbing products that are physically compatible with drinking water systems?

    3. Will labeling the packaging of pipes, fittings or fixtures as not for use for water for human consumption be sufficient to inform consumers of the appropriate use of the product?

    4. In addition to the specific plumbing devices excluded in the SDWA, EPA is also proposing to exclude clothes washing machines, fire suppression sprinklers, eyewash devices, sump pumps and emergency drench showers. EPA is not aware of a potable use for these devices, or of a potable use product that they could be confused with; and as such, requiring a label to qualify for the “used exclusively” exemption could be redundant and unnecessary for those devices. Is EPA's assumption about the lack of a potable use for these specific plumbing devices appropriate?

    5. Are there other specific plumbing devices for which there are no potable uses, nor a potable use product they could be confused with that should be added to the list of excluded products?

    6. EPA is proposing to retain the exemption for leaded joints used in the repair of cast iron pipes. EPA interprets the introduction into commerce provision as not prohibiting the sale or distribution of lead which may be used to form leaded joints used in the repair of cast iron pipes. Congress did not remove the statutory exemption for these types of repairs in section 1417(a)(1)(B) in either the 1996 or the 2011 amendments to section 1417 of the SDWA. Therefore, EPA believes that Congress intended to continue to allow the use of leaded joints necessary for the repair of cast iron pipes. EPA is seeking comment on this interpretation of section 1417(a)(1)(B).

    D. Product Certification

    EPA is proposing certification requirements for manufacturers and importers to demonstrate the maximum lead content of the wetted surfaces of their plumbing products do not exceed a weighted average of 0.25 percent using the method for the calculation of lead content established in the statute by either third party certification bodies or self-certification. For products that are required to meet Section 1417's lead free requirements, EPA proposes to require manufacturers with 100 or more employees or importers representing foreign manufacturers with 100 or more employees to demonstrate compliance with the lead free definition by obtaining third party certification by an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited third party certification body. EPA proposes to require manufacturers with fewer than 100 employees or importers representing foreign manufacturers with fewer than 100 employees to demonstrate compliance either through third party certification by an ANSI accredited certification body or through self-certification as described below.

    Third party certification is currently required for certain products in widely adopted model plumbing codes. The most recent version of the single most widely adopted model plumbing code requires pipe, pipe fittings, joints, values, faucets and fixture fittings used to supply water for drinking or cooking purposes to comply with the NSF/ANSI 372 standard for lead content. To meet the NSF/ANSI 372 standard, a product must be evaluated by an ANSI accredited third party certification body. These are independent organizations that test a product, review a product's manufacturing process and determine that the product complies with specific standards for safety, quality, sustainability or performance (i.e., NSF/ANSI 372 standard for lead content). ANSI accredited third party certification bodies currently include NSF International, CSA Group, ICC Evaluation Services, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Research & Testing (IAPMO R&T), Intertek Testing Services, Truesdail Laboratories, Underwriters Laboratories and Water Quality Association.

    For manufacturers with fewer than 100 employees and importers sourcing products from or representing foreign manufacturers with fewer than 100 employees, the proposed rule provides the flexibility of allowing these entities to demonstrate product compliance by either using an ANSI accredited third party certification body or by self-certification of the products. EPA estimated that manufacturers of covered products having fewer than 100 employees account for 72 percent of the total number of such manufacturers, but only produce 5 to 18 percent of the total volume of products. Small manufacturers that opt for the self-certification option would be required to develop a “certificate of conformity,” also known as a declaration of conformity, to attest that products meet the lead free requirements. A similar concept is currently in use for certain products regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

    For manufacturers or importers electing to self-certify products, the proposed rule would require the manufacturer to post the certificate of conformity on a Web page with continuing public access in the United States.

    As proposed, the certificate of conformity would be required to include: Contact information for the manufacturer and any importer, a listing of products, statements attesting that the products meet the lead free requirements and that the manufacturer's or importer's eligibility to self-certify the product is consistent with the regulation (i.e., manufacturer has fewer than 100 employees), a statement indicating how the manufacturer or importer verified conformance, and signatory information. The statement indicating how the manufacturer or importer verified conformance could be a brief overview of the general methodology employed, such as: Laboratory testing using X-Ray Fluorescence, other specific technologies, or that all source materials used in manufacture were confirmed to be less than 0.25 percent lead. This proposal would require manufacturers or importers using self-certification to maintain sufficient documentation to confirm that products meet the lead free requirements.

    The proposed certification requirements will further reduce the likelihood that non-lead free products will either intentionally or inadvertently be placed into commerce or used in the repair or installation of any public water system or any plumbing in a facility providing water for human consumption. In addition, the labeling and the certification requirements will assist in the enforcement of the SDWA section 1417(a)(3) prohibition of the introduction into commerce of pipes, pipe or plumbing fittings or fixtures that are not lead free. A third party certification requirement leverages the resources of the third party certifiers as well as the supply chain to help the market meet the requirements of RDLWA. The self-certification requirement, which is applicable to manufacturers with fewer than 100 employees, while not as rigorous as a requirement to obtain third party certification, nonetheless provides an additional assurance that products sold by those smaller manufacturers are lead free.

    As an alternative to the proposed product certification requirements previously described, EPA considered requiring all manufacturers to obtain third party certification for products required to meet the lead free requirements. A uniform third party certification requirement would result in a level playing field for all manufacturers and would also make the marketplace consistent when a consumer is shopping for pipes, fittings or fixtures. EPA is not proposing this option because we are concerned about the economic impacts of a mandatory third-party certification requirement on manufacturers with fewer than 100 employees. Some of these manufacturers likely produce or fabricate small quantities of products that may be custom-made for a single specific use with a customer. A requirement for third party certification in these instances may be impractical and costly per unit produced. For those reasons, EPA chose the approach described in this proposal.

    EPA also considered the option of allowing all manufacturers the option of electing third party certification or self-certification for their various products. This option would allow maximum flexibility for manufacturers and would likely limit financial impacts to firms that currently do not get their products independently certified. EPA opted not to propose this approach because we found that (currently) the most widely used model plumbing codes require many products to be third party certified, and that there already exists a high level of adoption of third party standards in the plumbing industry. Additionally, requiring all but the smallest firms to certify their products using third party certification bodies would ensure that the vast majority of products sold in the marketplace are independently verified as lead free.

    EPA solicits comments on this aspect of the proposed rule, including EPA's rationale as described in this preamble. In addition, EPA specifically solicits comments, information and data on the following topics:

    1. Should third party certification be required of U.S. manufacturers regardless of the number of employees?

    2. Should U.S. manufacturers have the option of conducting either third party certification or self-certification for products they produce?

    3. Is there a need for some manufacturers to have a self-certification option?

    4. Should third party certification be required of importers of foreign manufactured plumbing materials regardless of the number of employees at the foreign manufacturer?

    5. Is there a more appropriate break point (e.g., fewer than 20 employees, fewer than 500 employees based on other categories of Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses) for allowing self-certification?

    6. Conversely, should all importers of foreign manufactured plumbing products be eligible for self-certification?

    7. Is the definition of importer in § 143.11 of this proposed rule adequate to ensure compliance with the proposed requirements?

    8. Are there more appropriate criteria for requiring third party certification for manufacturers based on classes of products that EPA should evaluate, such as more complicated multi-component devices (for example, valves, faucets, pumps, water coolers, etc.), but allowing an option of self-certification for simple single component plumbing pieces (for example, elbow joint, gasket, pipe, etc.); or alternatively, based on whether a product is mass produced or custom fabricated?

    9. Should self-certification be allowed for all products made by any manufacturer if the product is composed of a single material such as pure copper?

    10. For self-certification, is the requirement for a “certificate of conformity” and its proposed content appropriate, or should there be another process for self-certification or is there other content for the “certificate of conformity” that would be more appropriate?

    11. Should any product certification be required?

    E. Other Regulatory Requirements and Clarifications 1. Compliance Information Authority

    In order to effectively enforce the lead free requirements of the SDWA and the proposed implementing regulations, EPA needs the ability to obtain, if necessary on a case-by-case basis, certain compliance related information from manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers and others subject to SDWA section 1417, such as information related to the calculation of the weighted average of wetted surfaces, schematics of fittings/fixtures, certification documentation, purchases/sales dates, and examples of lead free product and/or package messaging. This proposed rule contains a provision providing the EPA Administrator with explicit authority to request such information on a case-by-case basis and a requirement for entities to provide the information requested to the Administrator. This provision is based on statutory authority contained in section 1445 of the SDWA.

    2. State Enforcement of Use Prohibitions

    EPA is proposing language in § 143.14 to codify in regulation that the SDWA 1417(b) requirement for states to enforce the use prohibition on pipe, pipe fittings or fixtures, any solder, or any flux that are not lead free is a condition of receiving a full Public Water System Supervision grant allocation. Under SDWA 1417(b)(1), the state enforcement provision only applies to the use prohibition in section 1417(a)(1); it does not apply to the introduction into commerce prohibition in section 1417(a)(3) of the SDWA, nor would it apply to the proposed requirements for labeling and certification.

    F. Implementation

    The revised definition of lead free has been in effect since January 4, 2014, as per the RLDWA and the CFSA. EPA is proposing that labeling and the product certification requirements contained within this proposal will be in effect three years from the date the final regulation is published, consistent with the three-year time period provided under the RLDWA and CFSA. EPA is also proposing that all other provisions are effective 30 days after the date the final regulation is published, because those provisions merely codify statutory provisions already in effect.

    EPA solicits comments on all aspects of the proposed implementation period for this proposed rule. EPA specifically requests comments, information and data on whether three years is an appropriate timeframe to achieve compliance with the proposed labeling and certification requirements, or is a different timeframe more appropriate? Is there a need for a different effective date for any other provisions of the rule?

    V. Costs

    EPA collected data from public sources and private data vendors to develop the estimated rule costs to plumbing manufacturing firms. Annual production of potable use products and products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption is 1.3 billion units and 500 million units, respectively. There are 2,193 firms producing plumbing products impacted by this proposed rule, which are spread across 14 NAICS codes. Table V.1 summarizes information for the segment of the industry that produces potable use products. Table V.2 summarizes the data for the segment of the industry that produces products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption. Both tables break production into product subcategories and provide EPA's estimated annual production values, the NAICS code assigned and the number of manufacturers in the subcategory.

    Table V.1—Product Subcategories, Production, NAICS and Number of Manufacturers EPA Identified for Potable Use Products Product category Product name Units produced annually
  • (2013)
  • NAICS for
  • product
  • Number of
  • manufacturers for product
  • Pipe and Fittings Copper Tube (<4″ in diameter) 233,049,645 332996 213 PEX Pipe (<4″ in diameter) 348,583,587 326122 27 CPVC Pipe (<4″ in diameter) 148,219,048 326122 48 Copper Fittings (<4″ in diameter) 93,219,858 332913 119 Brass Fittings (<4″ in diameter) 80,026,241 332913 523 PEX Fittings (<4″ in diameter) 99,620,061 332913 47 CPVC Pipe Fittings (<4″ in diameter) 59,287,619 332913 63 Small and Mid-Diameter PVC Pipe 58,257,345 326122 143 PVC Pipe Fittings 14,927,862 332913 103 Faucets and Mixers Kitchen and Bar Faucet Market 8,531,915 332913 74 Lavatory Faucet 18,635,258 332913 74 Kitchen Sinks and Accessories Kitchen Sink 4,730,496 332999 24 Sink Strainer 11,036,332 332999 24 Residential Water Filtration Products Point-of-entry Residential Water Filtration Market 1,236,699 333318 713 Point-of-use Counter Top Water Filtration Market 72,857 333318 694 Point-of-use Under the Sink Water Filtration Market 261,702 333318 704 Point-of-use Faucet Mount Water Filtration Market 1,707,194 333318 694 Stop Valves, Stainless Steel Braided Hoses, Inline Valves Stop Valve Market
  • 9,455,319
  • 332911
  • 23
  • Stainless Steel Braided Hose Market 9,424,559 333999 204 Residential Inline Valve Market 30,597,771 332919 204 Water Heaters and Boilers Combi Boiler Market 55,527 333999 15 Residential Gas Tankless Water Heater Market 410,831 335228 20 Residential Gas Storage Water Heaters 4,338,506 335228 11 Residential Electric Storage Water Heaters 4,061,277 335228 11 Residential Indirect Fired Water Heater Market 133,647 335228 10 Residential Electric Tankless Water Heater Market 276,398 335228 19 Residential Solar Storage Water Heater Market 21,819 335228 42 Residential Oil Water Heaters 31,692 335228 1 Commercial Gas Storage Water Heater Market 89,706 335228 11 Commercial Electric Storage Water Heater Market 70,071 335228 15 Water Coolers/Drinking Fountains/Bubblers Water Cooler/Drinking Fountain/Bubbler Market 557,244 333415 5 Household Appliances Refrigerators with Water Dispenser/Ice Making Machinery 4,540,527 335222 7 Dishwasher Market 5,537,416 335228 5 Water Softener Market 3,444,782 333318 98 Household & Commercial Appliances Coffee Makers 234,247 333318 40 Other Aerator 27,167,173 332913 3 Backflow preventers/Vacuum Breakers 32,202 332913 11 Gaskets/O-rings 5,433,435 339991 13 Pumps 1,808,369 333911 19 Water Meters/End Point Meters 7,053,100 334514 68 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibits 3-3 and 3-11 (USEPA, 2016). Table V.2—Product Subcategories, Production, NAICS and Number of Manufacturers EPA Identified for Products Eligible for the “Used Exclusively” Exemption Product category Product name Units produced annually
  • (2013)
  • NAICS for
  • product
  • Number of
  • manufacturers
  • for product
  • Pipe and Fittings Copper Tube (<4″ in diameter) 81,033,435 332996 213 Pipe and Fittings Faucets and Mixers PEX Pipe (<4″ in diameter) 59,116,515 326122 27 CPVC Pipe (<4″ in diameter) 39,876,190 326122 48 Copper Fittings (<4″ in diameter) 32,413,374 332913 119 Brass Fittings (<4″ in diameter) 27,825,836 332913 523 PEX Fittings (<4″ in diameter) 16,894,630 332913 47 CPVC Pipe Fittings (<4″ in diameter) 15,950,476 332913 63 Small and Mid-Diameter PVC Pipe 68,389,058 326122 143 PVC Pipe Fittings 35,048,024 332913 103 Laundry Faucet 1,122,594 332913 72 Stop Valves, Stainless Steel Braided Hoses, Inline Valves Stop Valve Market 62,175,887 332911 23 Stop Valves, Stainless Steel Braided Hoses, Inline Valves, Other Stainless Steel Braided Hose Market
  • Aerator
  • 106,928,024
  • 1,122,594
  • 333999
  • 332913
  • 204
  • 3
  • Other Backflow preventers/Vacuum Breakers 79,265 332913 11 Gaskets/O-rings 224,519 339991 13 Pumps 21,914 333911 19 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibits 3-6 and 3-12 (USEPA, 2016).

    EPA developed cost estimates for this proposed rule along with two additional regulatory alternatives EPA considered in the development of the proposal. All three regulatory options contain estimates for initial administrative and implementation costs, costs to modify their product and/or package messaging, third party or self-certification costs, and response to data request costs. The three options are presented in Table V.3. Option B is the regulatory option selected for this proposal. The Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2016) provides more detailed information on the costing methodology and a discussion of the uncertainties and limitations of this assessment.

    Table V.3—Regulatory Options Option Option description A • Product labels and package marking for potable use products. • Third party certification required for all firms. B • Product labels and package marking for potable use products. • Self-certification or third party certification for <100 Employees; Third party certification only for ≥100 Employees. C • Product labels or package marking for potable use products. • Third party certification or self-certification for all firms. A. Initial Administrative and Initial Implementation Costs

    The analysis for initial administrative and implementation costs was conducted at the level of the manufacturing firm. These costs do not vary by regulatory option. EPA estimated that it would take each firm an average of 8 hours to read and understand the rule once promulgated. This time estimate when multiplied by an average labor rate of $71.72 and the number of firms affected by the rule, 2,193, gives a total cost of $1.26 million.

    EPA also estimated the cost to manufacturing firms that would have to redesign their product and/or package messaging to include lead-related information. To calculate the cost of package and product messaging redesign, EPA first estimated the total number of product types across 46 product subcategories. A total of 5,705 product types were identified. EPA estimated a percent range of firms that would be required to redesign their product and package in order to comply with this proposed rule. Firms with greater than 500 employees are estimated to redesign 10 percent of product and package messaging. Manufacturers with fewer than 500 employees are assumed to redesign between 25 and 50 percent of their product and package messaging. Redesign was estimated to require 5 hours of labor multiplied by the number of products, giving a total costs range between $0.24 and $0.47 million.

    Table V.4 summarizes, by size category, the initial rule implementation annualized cost ranges. The values were discounted at both the 3 and 7 percent rates over the 25-year period of analysis. Annual total initial implementation costs range from $0.08 to $0.14 million.

    Table V.4—Rule Initial Administrative and Initial Implementation Annualized Costs, in Millions [2014$] Manufacturer size (no. of employees) Read and understand the rule Discount rate 3% 7% Messaging design change Discount rate 3% 7% Initial rule implementation cost Discount rate 3% 7% <100 $0.051 $0.073 $0.011-0.021 $0.015-0.03 $0.061-0.072 $0.088-0.103 100-499 0.001 0.016 0.002-0.005 0.003-0.007 0.014-0.016 0.020-0.023 ≥500 0.008 0.012 0.001-0.001 0.001-0.001 0.009-0.009 0.013-0.013 All Sizes 0.07 0.101 0.014-0.027 0.02-0.038 0.084-0.097 0.121-0.139 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibits 4-7a and 4-7b (USEPA, 2016). B. Labeling Potable Use Products

    In order to estimate the potential cost of this proposed rule and the two alternative regulatory scenarios presented in this proposed rule preamble, EPA collected information on current labeling practices to set the regulatory baseline. EPA developed three baseline scenarios characterizing the proportion of firms by size category that either currently have lead free labeling (meeting the requirements of this proposed rule), have product messaging not related to lead free requirements, or have no product messaging. These three scenarios capture the uncertainty surrounding EPA's understanding of current industry labeling practices. Table V.5 presents preexisting labeling assumptions that represent the lower bound for regulatory cost estimates. Table V.6 shows a possible lower level baseline of product labeling. This table represents the upper bound for rule cost estimate. Across both lower and upper bound scenarios, EPA has made the conservative assumption that 5 percent of all firms have no messaging on product or package. Also common across the scenarios, is the concept that firms with greater numbers of employees have larger production totals and serve larger market areas and, therefore, will have a higher probability of selling in markets that already require lead content labeling on product and package. The upper bound scenario assumes manufacturers with fewer than 500 employees mark products with lead content messaging 50 percent of the time, while in the lower bound scenario, those same firms label 75 percent of products with lead content messaging. Also, firms in the upper bound scenario with less than 100 employees mark 50 percent of their packaging with lead content labeling. The lower bound assumes that firms with fewer than 100 employees label 75 percent of packaging with lead content information.

    Table V.5—Estimated Percentage of Potable Use Products With and Without Existing Messaging [Lower bound] Manufacturer size
  • (number of employees)
  • Percent with lead-content
  • messaging
  • Product Package Percent with existing messaging but not lead-related
  • (incur partial messaging costs)
  • Product Package Percent with no messaging
  • (incur total messaging costs)
  • Product Package
    <100 75 75 20 20 5 5 100-499 75 90 20 5 5 5 ≥500 90 90 5 5 5 5 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-8a (USEPA, 2016).
    Table V.6—Estimated Percentage of Potable Use Products With and Without Existing Messaging [Upper bound] Manufacturer size
  • (number of employees)
  • Percent with lead-content
  • messaging
  • Product Package Percent with existing messaging but not lead-related
  • (incur partial messaging costs)
  • Product Package Percent with no messaging
  • (incur total messaging costs)
  • Product Package
    <100 50 50 45 45 5 5 100-499 50 90 45 5 5 5 ≥500 90 90 5 5 5 5 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-8b (USEPA, 2016).

    Using the assumptions on current industry messaging practices detailed in Tables V.5 and V.6, EPA applied its unit compliance technology costs for both product and package labeling in the following way: (1) Firms that currently have lead content messaging on both product and package are assumed to have no labeling costs in this regulatory analysis; (2) manufacturers that currently mark their product and/or package with some messaging (e.g., company name and marketing materials, a description of how the product is used, installation instructions or other certification and identification information) were assigned a partial cost to implement the requirements of this proposed rule; and (3) firms assumed to have no product labeling on package or product received full capital and O&M costs as part of the regulatory assessment of costs.

    Under regulatory options requiring lead free marking on potable use products, EPA assigned to each of the 40 identified product subcategories one of three compliance technologies: Printing on product (e.g., copper or plastic pipe), modification of production molds and patterns through the use of electric diode machining (e.g., brass fittings), or attaching a tag with wire or another non adhesive method (e.g., water heaters).1

    1 Small products like gaskets and o-rings are assumed to be bagged with lead free messaging.

    For regulatory costing scenarios that required lead free labeling on product packages, EPA (again) assigned one of three compliance technologies to each of the 40 potable use product categories. The compliance technologies are printing on product box (e.g., faucets), printing on product bag (e.g., copper and brass fittings), or adhesive label (e.g., braided steel hose).2

    2 Products that are not sold with packaging like pipe are assumed to comply by printing on product.

    Unit capital and O&M costs for each of the six compliance technologies were derived with information collected from both the PMI and AFS trade associations and information from tool and die firms, product packaging vendors, and printing equipment suppliers.

    Table V.7 provides EPA's estimated total annual cost ranges for potable use product lead free messaging on product and/or package for the three options considered as part of the regulatory analysis. For Options A and B, costs include labeling on both the product and package and range from $8.69 to $13.60 million (2014$) dollars annually. For Option C, which gives producers the choice to label the product or package, EPA assumed that impacted firms would choose the lower cost package labeling alternative; therefore, annual costs range from $1.14 to $1.28 million dollars.

    Table V.7—Total Annualized Present Value Costs for Lead Free Labeling of Potable Use Products on Product and Package, Millions [2014$] Option 3% Discount rate
  • in millions
  • (2014$)
  • 7% Discount rate
  • in millions
  • (2014$)
  • A: Product and package messaging $8.69-10.34 $11.32-13.60 B: Product and package messaging 8.69-10.34 11.32-13.60 C: Product or package messaging 1.17-1.28 1.14-1.26 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibits 4-13a and 4-13b (USEPA, 2016).
    C. Labeling of Products Eligible for the “Used Exclusively” Exemption

    As discussed in section IV.C, EPA has included an additional means of qualifying for the “used exclusively” exemption.

    The proposed provision to label products to establish that the products are “used exclusively” in nonpotable services provides a less costly option to persons introducing the product into commerce. If the proposed regulations limited the availability of the “used exclusively” exemption to products that are physically incompatible with potable water systems, then persons introducing non-potable water plumbing products into commerce that are physically compatible and capable of being connected to systems providing water for human consumption would be required to assure that these products meet the lead free requirements. Alternatively, they could or redesign their products to make them physical incompatible with potable water systems. EPA anticipates that the costs associated with designing and applying a label are likely to be less than the costs associated with reformulating the alloy and overhauling the manufacturing processes associated with meeting the “lead free” requirements. Therefore, this optional compliance alternative will not result in increased costs or burden, and will result in a cost savings for those manufacturers who elect to take advantage of this proposed optional exemption mechanism.

    There are six product subcategories that are both physically compatible with potable use applications and would meet the lead content limit of 0.25 percent of wetted surfaces to be considered lead free. In order to develop costs for this requirement EPA first determined the baseline current industry practices when it comes to labeling products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption and their packaging. Table V.8 shows the lower bound percentage of products by firm size category that currently use lead content messaging, messaging of some kind (e.g., marks, serial numbers, installation instructions), and have no labeling on product or packaging. Table V.9 details the upper bound baseline assumed percentages for labeling by firm size for products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption.

    Table V.8—Estimated Percentage of Products Eligible for “Used Exclusively” Exemption With and Without Existing Messaging [Lower bound] Manufacturer size
  • (number of employees)
  • Percent with lead-related
  • messaging
  • Product
  • (%)
  • Package
  • (%)
  • Percent with existing messaging but not lead-related
  • (incur partial messaging costs)
  • Product
  • (%)
  • Package
  • (%)
  • Percent with no messaging
  • (incur total messaging costs)
  • Product
  • (%)
  • Package
  • (%)
  • <100 50 50 45 45 5 5 100-499 75 75 20 20 5 5 ≥500 75 75 20 20 5 5 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-14a (USEPA, 2016).
    Table V.9—Estimated Percentage of Products Eligible for “Used Exclusively” Exemption With and Without Existing Messaging [Upper bound] Manufacturer size
  • (number of employees)
  • Percent with lead-related
  • messaging
  • Product
  • (%)
  • Package
  • (%)
  • Percent with existing messaging but not lead-related
  • (incur partial messaging costs)
  • Product
  • (%)
  • Package
  • (%)
  • Percent with no messaging
  • (incur total messaging costs)
  • Product
  • (%)
  • Package
  • (%)
  • <100 25 25 70 70 5 5 100-499 50 50 45 45 5 5 ≥500 50 50 45 45 5 5 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-14b (USEPA, 2016).

    EPA assumed manufacturers of products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption that currently do not have lead-related information on their product would use the same compliance technologies that would be used for the labeling of potable use products and packages. For labeling on the product, EPA assigned each of the subcategories as either the printing on product or the mold modification compliance technology.3 Also, for package compliance, EPA assigned the print on bag compliance technology. Under the “used exclusively” exempt package marking requirements, piping products are required to be printed directly on the product since they are generally not packaged.

    3 Small products like gaskets and o-rings are assumed to be bagged with lead free messaging.

    EPA used the same unit cost information that was developed for the potable use labeling requirements. Table V.10 details, by size category, the regulatory annual total cost ranges for labeling those products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption not for potable use applications. This cost component does not vary by regulatory option. Annual total cost for labeling products that are not for potable use range from $0.14 to $0.22 million.

    Exhibit V.10—Total Annualized Present Value Costs for Lead-Related Messaging on Products Eligible for the “Used Exclusively” Exemption on Package or Product, Millions [2014$] Manufacturer size
  • (number of employees)
  • 3% Discount rate
  • in millions
  • (2014$)
  • 7% Discount rate
  • in millions
  • (2014$)
  • <100 $0.03-$0.03 $0.02-$0.03 100-499 0.01-0.01 0.01-0.01 ≥500 0.11-0.17 0.10-0.16 Total Cost 0.15-0.22 0.14-0.20 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-17 (USEPA, 2016), Rule Component All Sizes worksheet.
    D. Product Certification

    In order to develop total compliance costs for third party certification, EPA had to determine the regulatory baseline. This baseline represents the current industry practice with regard to third party certification. EPA collected information on use of third party certification by plumbing manufacturers by reviewing current state laws requiring certification for NSF Standard 61 and 372; reviewing the International and Uniform Plumbing Codes; contacting the two primary industry trade groups, PMI and AFS; and acquiring information from industry third party certifiers (e.g., NSF International, CSA Group, UL, etc.). Based on the collected information, EPA assumed that 90 percent of manufacturers with 100 or greater employees already use an accredited third party agency to certify that their products are lead free. As with potable use product labeling, third party certification costs are a major driver of overall cost to manufacturers; therefore, EPA chose to develop lower and upper bound cost scenarios based on baseline compliance assumptions for firms having less than 100 employees. Fifty to 75 percent of plumbing manufacturers having fewer than 100 employees are assumed to use third party certifiers. Table V.11 summarizes the third party certification baseline assumptions EPA used in the development of regulatory costs. Under all regulatory options, certification costs would only be attributable to those manufacturers that do not already use these third party certification bodies.

    Table V.11—Estimated Percentage of Manufacturers That Do Not Already Use Third Party Certification Bodies Manufacturer size
  • (number of employees)
  • Percentage of manufacturers that
  • currently do not use third party
  • certifying bodies and to which
  • certification costs would apply
  • Lower
  • bound (%)
  • Upper
  • bound (%)
  • <100 25 50 100-499 10 10 ≥500 10 10 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-18 (USEPA, 2016).

    Third party certifying firms usually conduct the certification process according to product families. For NSF/ANSI Standard 372, products of the same material formulation and similar configuration are considered one product family. Thus, certifying costs were developed on a product family basis. EPA estimated that each firm produces an average of three product families, based on an assessment of firm Web site data for manufacturers across all potable use product subcategories.

    Certification costs can be broken into initial assessment and testing costs and annual renewal costs. Most of the accredited third party certification bodies offer an annual renewal based on an audit process for a set number of years after the initial certification year. In order to derive initial and renewal certification unit costs, EPA contacted the eight ANSI accredited third party certification bodies to obtain estimated costs for certifying products to ANSI/NSF Standard 372. The certifiers were asked to provide estimates for four representative product categories (faucets, fittings, valves and pipes), which are intended to represent the range in complexity of plumbing products.

    Four certification bodies provided quotes of sufficient specificity or comparable scope to be used in estimating initial certification costs. None of the firms provided quotes for all four product lines. Costs varied based on the product type and certifying body. EPA used the average of these quotes across firms and product types to derive a composite estimated cost of $6,000 for an initial certification of a single product family. Five of the eight certification bodies provided estimates for annually renewing the third party certification to Standard 372. Costs varied based on the product type and certification body. One of the responding certifiers requires re-certification annually. The other four certification bodies require renewal on a less frequent basis, the longest being every five years. EPA determined a five-year cost stream for each of the third party certifiers and computed a per product family average annual renewal cost of $3,200. In addition to the certifiers' fees, EPA assumed a $224 annualized cost for recordkeeping on the part of the plumbing manufacturing firms.

    Both the preferred proposed rule Option B and Option C allow for some firms to self-certify compliance with lead free requirements. EPA estimated that each manufacturer would require 40 hours of labor to initially develop the certificate of conformity (the requirement of the certificate of conformity can be found in section IV.D of this preamble) which certifies a product family as being compliant with the lead free requirements. The unit cost per product family is $1,122. The labor burden for the annual renewal of the self-certification per product family is estimated to be 16 hours. These hours are used to update the certificate of conformity and perform recordkeeping activities. This means the unit cost of annual self-recertification is $449 per product family.

    Table V.12 provides EPA's estimated total annual cost ranges for potable use product certification requirements of this proposed rule and other options that were considered. Unit certification costs were multiplied by the number of firms and average number of product families. Option A's cost range of $11.20 to $21.58 million reflects a third party certification requirement for all regulated firms. Option B, the proposed option, requires third party certification for firms with 100 or more employees and gives the option of self-certification to firms with fewer than 100 employees. Annual costs for Option B range from $2.82 to $4.31 million. The analysis of Option C assumes that all firms, when given the less costly self-certification choice, will opt for that compliance path. Therefore, the annual costs that range from $1.52 to $2.98 million reported here are for all firms conducting self-certifications. EPA did not assess any cost savings to firms that would no longer choose to have products third party certified.

    Table V.12—Total Annualized Present Value Costs for Demonstration of Compliance Requirements, Millions [2014$] Option 3% Discount rate
  • in millions
  • (2014$)
  • 7% Discount rate
  • in millions
  • (2014$)
  • A: Third party certification only $11.20-$20.90 $11.56-$21.58 B: Third party for ≥100; Choice of self-certification for <100 (Proposed Rule) 2.82-4.14 2.93-4.31 C: Third party certification or self-certification 1.52-2.84 1.59-2.98 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibits 4-23a and 4-23b (USEPA, 2016). Note: Under Option C, all manufacturers are assumed to select the less costly choice of self-certification.
    E. Response to EPA Data Request Costs

    Under all three of the proposed regulatory options, plumbing manufacturers will be required to respond to EPA's requests for product information (See section IV.E.1.a for a detailed description of the data request provision). EPA assumed that firms would spend an average of 20 hours responding to each data request, resulting in a unit cost of $1,434. As part of the cost assessment, EPA multiplied the per unit cost by 10 unique data requests per year, starting in the fourth year after promulgation of the final rule and continuing over the 25-year period of analysis. Seventy percent of requests would be to firms with 500 or more employees, 20 percent of requests would be to firms with 100 to 499 employees, and firms with fewer than 100 employees would receive the remaining 10 percent. This breakdown of requests between firm size categories roughly corresponds to the proportion of total products produced by firms in each of the size categories. Table V.13 shows the total annualized cost of EPA data request response by firm size category. Total data request costs range from approximately $12,400 a year discounted at 3 percent to about $11,900 a year when discounted at 7 percent.

    Table V.13—Total Annualized Present Value Costs for Responding to Data Requests, in Millions [2014$] Manufacturer size
  • (number of employees)
  • 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
    <100 $0.0012 $0.0012 100-499 0.0025 0.0024 ≥500 0.0087 0.0083 All Sizes 0.0124 0.0119 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-25 (USEPA, 2016).
    VI. Economic Impacts Analysis

    EPA assessed the social costs and the projected economic impacts of the three regulatory options described in this proposal. This section provides an overview of the methodology EPA used to assess the social costs and the economic impacts of this proposed rule and summarizes the results of these analyses. The Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2016), which is available in the docket, provides more details on these analyses, including discussions of uncertainties and limitations.

    A. Annualized Social Costs Estimates

    EPA estimated the total annualized social costs to plumbing manufacturers by summing the rule's component costs, which include administrative requirement costs, the cost to potable use product manufacturers for both labeling on the product and on the product's packaging, the cost to manufacturers of products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption for package labeling indicating non-compliance with lead free requirements, third party- and self-certification costs, and the costs of responding to EPA data requests. EPA annualized the stream of future costs using both the 3 percent (the social discount rate) and 7 percent (opportunity cost of capital) discount rates. EPA annualized one-time costs over the period of analysis, 25 years. Capital and O&M costs recurring on other than an annual basis were annualized over a specific useful life, implementation, and/or event recurrence period (i.e., 10 years for mold modifications), using rates of 3 and 7 percent. EPA added the annualized capital, initial one-time costs, and the non-annual portion of O&M costs to annual O&M costs to derive total annualized compliance costs, where all costs are expressed on an equivalent constantly recurring annual cost basis.

    Table VI.1 presents the total annualized compliance costs of the regulatory options. As shown in the table, total annualized compliance costs range between $3 million and $36 million for Options C and A, respectively, with the proposed option (Option B) estimated to have annualized costs of $12 million to $18 million.

    Table VI.1—Total Annualized Social Costs [Millions, 2014$] Regulatory option 1 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate A: Label product and packaging/third party certification $20.1-$31.6 $23.1-$35.5 B: (Proposed Rule): Label product and packaging/third party certification for manufacturers ≥100 employees and third party or self-certification for others 11.8-14.8 14.5-18.3 C: Label product or packaging/third party or self-certification 2.9-4.5 3.0-4.6 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-27 (USEPA, 2016). 1 Table includes annualized costs for rule implementation, certification of potable use products, lead-related messaging for potable use products and products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption, and EPA requests for data. B. Economic Impacts—Cost-to-Revenue Analysis

    To provide an assessment of the impact of the rule on plumbing manufacturing firms, EPA used a cost-to-revenue analysis. The cost-to-revenue analysis compares the total annualized compliance cost of each regulatory option with the revenue of the impacted entities. This same analysis is also used under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to determine if a rule has the potential to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    In order to conduct the cost-to-revenue test, EPA developed a list of 2,193 manufacturers that participate in the production of specific types of plumbing products for both potable use and those eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption. These firms were assigned to a NAICS code, based on the type of plumbing product they manufacture. Firm size distributional information, based on number of employees, available from the U.S. Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses for the year 2012 was then used to parse the number of entities in each NAICS code into a number of small business and large firm categories. In this way, the number of firms in each of the 14 NAICS codes having seven employee size categories each (e.g., 0-4, 5-9, 10-19, 20-99, 100-499, 500+ to the Small Business Administration (SBA) small business threshold, and large firms above the SBA threshold) was derived. Computation of total average firm cost under each of the NAICS/employee entity size categories was developed by applying the estimated unit fixed and variable costs to each regulatory option. In order to calculate total average variable costs for each size category, unit variable costs must be adjusted by the units produced and firms producing in each of the NAICS/employee size categories. To determine the number of units produced per NAICS/employee size category, EPA used information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses. The Census Bureau does not provide units produced for each of the NAICS employee size categories, so EPA used the percent of firm receipts by size category as a proxy. The approximated units per size category were then divided by the estimated number of entities in the category (derivation of the number of entities per NAICS/employee size category was previously described) giving average units produced per firm. Average units per firm for each size category was multiplied by unit variable cost to get total variable cost for each NAICS/employees size category. The Census does not provide revenue values by NAICS and employee sizes, so EPA used data on total annual receipts (assuming receipts is an unbiased estimator) by NAICS/employee size categories as a close (although more conservative) approximation of revenue. The total receipts information was divided by the number of firms per category to approximate average revenue.

    EPA then compared the computed average annual costs to the average revenue for each of the NAICS/employee size categories. If average cost exceeded revenue by 1 percent, all firms assigned to that category were assumed to incur impacts. Likewise, if average annual cost exceeded revenue by 3 percent in a NAICS/employee size category, all entities in that category are assumed to be impacted at the 3 percent level. Impacted firms are summed across NAICS codes and employee size categories to assess the total impact to the industry.

    Table VI.2 summarizes the cost-to-revenue analysis results for the three main regulatory options. The table only shows the largest impact scenarios analyzed, based on upper bound compliance cost estimates, and using a 7 percent discount rate. For the lower bound cost and 3 percent discounted impact results see the Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2016). Under Option B, which represents this proposed rule (which includes costs for rule implementation, potable use labeling costs for both package and product, labeling of products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption that do not meet lead free requirements, third party certification cost for firms with 100 or more employees and third party or self-certification costs for firm with fewer than 100 employees, and data request costs), EPA estimates that the vast majority of plumbing manufacturing firms subject to the regulations will incur annualized costs amounting to less than 1 percent of revenue (2163 firms, or 98.6 percent of the total 2,193 manufacturers). A total of 29 firms (2 percent of small firms) had impacts between 1 and 3 percent of revenue, and no small manufacturers had impacts above 3 percent, given the costs estimated for Option B. The analysis of Option B also found that 1 large entity (0.5 percent of large firms) had impacts between 1 and 3 percent of revenue, and no large firms were impacted at the 3 percent revenue threshold.

    Table VI.2—Summary of Cost-to-Revenue Economic Impact Analysis [Upper bound scenario, small entities 7% discount rate, large entities 3% discount rate] Option Option description 1 Small entities
  • (7% discount rate)
  • Count 2 Total ≥1% ≥3% Percentage ≥1% ≥3% Large entities
  • (3% discount rate)
  • Count 2 Total ≥1% ≥3% Percentage ≥1% ≥3%
    A Product and Package Costs for Potable Product or Package Costs for “Used Exclusively” Exempt Product, 3rd Party Cert for all manufacturers 1,976 783 27 40 1 217 1 0 0.5 0.0 B Product and Package Costs for Potable Product or Package Costs for “Used Exclusively” Exempt Product, 3rd Party Cert for ≥100 employees, Self or 3rd Party Cert for <100 employees 1,976 29 0 2 0 217 1 0 0.5 0.0 C Product or Package Costs for Potable Product or Package Costs for “Used Exclusively” Exempt Product, Self or 3rd Party Cert for all manufacturers 1,976 0 0 0.0 0.0 217 0 0 0.0 0.0 Source: Technical Support Document, Exhibit 6-7 (USEPA, 2016). 1 All options also include implementation and data request costs. For Option B, EPA assumes that manufacturers <100 employees choose the least cost option of self-certification. For Option C, EPA assumes all manufacturers pick the least cost option of self-certification. In addition, for Option C, EPA assumes manufacturers choose the least cost option for labeling, which is usually package labeling except when the products do not have packaging. 2 Counts of impacted entities are rounded up to 1 if they fall between 0 and 1.

    EPA solicits comments on the economic analysis for this proposed rule, including EPA's cost analysis and benefits assessment as described in this preamble and the Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2016) for this proposed rule. Comments are most helpful when accompanied by specific examples or supporting data.

    VII. Benefits

    EPA did not quantify the expected change in health endpoints for this proposed regulation. EPA assessed the health effects associated with reductions in lead ingestion qualitatively using two main sources: (1) The EPA “Integrated Science Assessment for Lead” (USEPA, 2013b); and (2) the National Toxicity Program's Monograph on Health Effects of Low-level Lead (USHHS, 2012).

    A wealth of information exists on the adverse health effects associated with lead exposure. When ingested, lead is distributed throughout the body and can affect many organ systems. Lead is a highly toxic contaminant that can cause adverse neurological, cardiovascular, renal, reproductive, developmental, immunological and carcinogenic effects. The neurological effects are particularly pronounced in children; however, recent studies in the public health literature have found that a wide spectrum of adverse health outcomes can occur in people of all ages. In 2013, the U.S. Burden of Diseases Collaborators identified lead as one of the top 15 mortality risk factors (and top 10 cardiovascular risk factors) in the country. In addition, a level of lead exposure below which adverse effects do not occur has not been identified. This suggests that further declines in lead exposure below current-day levels could still yield meaningful benefits in the U.S. population, and the reduction in lead exposures from this proposed rule would result in fewer adverse health outcomes and, in turn, decrease societal costs of treatment. Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2016) for this proposed rule contains additional detailed information on the potential health impacts of lead on both children and adults.

    VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2563.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.

    The PRA requires EPA to estimate the burden on manufacturers and primacy agencies of complying with the proposed rule. The information collected as a result of this proposed rule should allow EPA to determine appropriate requirements for specific manufacturers and evaluate compliance with the proposed rule. For the first three years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, manufacturers will incur burden to conduct the following rule compliance activities:

    • Obtaining certification of products from an accredited third party certification body to document compliance with the lead free requirements as set forth in the SDWA.

    • Maintaining record costs associated with the initial certification (conducted by an accredited third party certification body) that potable use products meet the requirements of NSF/ANSI Standard 372.

    • Preparing the initial certificate of conformity and maintaining records for potable use products that are self-certified by the manufacturer as being lead free.

    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents include manufacturers of plumbing products intended for potable use and manufacturers of some plumbing products eligible for the “used exclusively” exemption that are physically compatible with potable use products. States and local governments are not impacted by the rule. For the first three years after publication of the final rule, EPA is not anticipated to incur any reporting or recordkeeping burden for implementation activities and ensuring compliance.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Compliance with the final rulemaking regulatory requirements would be mandatory. The authority for these requirements comes from EPA's authority for this proposed rule is section 1450 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300j-9. It authorizes the EPA Administrator to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out his/her functions under this subchapter.”

    Estimated number of respondents: EPA estimates that 2,193 firms will be affected by the proposed requirements of this regulation.

    Frequency of response: The requirements of this proposed rule that occur once during the three year ICR period include: Obtaining initial third-party certification or self-certify activities to indicate that a product meets the lead free requirements. Ongoing costs include the third party annual renewal fees, and for all firms annual recordkeeping costs for third party or self-certification. The rule requirement to respond to EPA requests for information is on an ad hoc basis (however, this information collection is not anticipated to occur during the three-year period covered by this ICR).

    Total estimated burden: Total three-year burden to manufacturers is estimated to be 162,582 to 318,276 hours, therefore the average annual burden number ranges from 54,194 to 106,092 hours. EPA estimated a range of burden (and costs) based on a lower and upper bound estimate of manufacturers that already include product and/or package lead free messaging that comply with the proposed rule requirements, as well as manufacturers that currently use a third party certifying agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: The total costs over the three-year period are between $8.5 and $12.9 million, or an average of $2.8 to $4.3 million per year.

    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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

    Submit your comments on EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than February 16, 2017. EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

    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. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are the manufacturing firms involved in the production of pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, flux or solder, which are utilized in public water system or any plumbing in a residential or nonresidential facility or location that provides water for human consumption that meet the SBA's size standards for small businesses. Firms providing these types of plumbing products span fourteen different North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) categories. The SBA small business definitions used in the analysis of this proposed rule vary across NAICS categories and range from firms with fewer than 500 employees to firm's with fewer than 1,250 employees (See Table XII.1).

    Table VIII.1—SBA Small Entity Size Standards by NAICS Code NAICS code SBA size standard 326122 750 332911 750 332913 1000 332919 750 332996 500 332999 750 333318 1000 333415 1250 333911 750 333999 500 334514 750 335222 1250 335228 1000 339991 500

    EPA has determined that 1,976 plumbing product manufacturers out of 2,193 plumbing product manufacturers potentially subject to this proposal meet the small business definitions. EPA's analysis of projected impacts on small entities is described in detail in section VII (Economic Impacts). EPA projects less than 2 percent of the 1,976 affected small entities may experience an impact of costs exceeding 1 percent of revenue and no small entities would incur compliance costs exceeding 3 percent of revenue. Details of this analysis are presented in Chapter 6 of the Technical Support Document, available in the docket, for the proposed rule.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule places no federal mandates on state, local, or tribal governments. The mandated annual cost to the private sector is estimated to be between $11.8 and $18.3 million and the highest single year nominal cost is $53.4 million which is below the $100 million UMRA threshold.

    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. It would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. This proposed rule contains no federal mandates for tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health & 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 implements specific standards established by Congress in statute. While the executive order does not apply, EPA does anticipate that the labeling requirements associated with this proposal will limit the inadvertent use of leaded plumbing products, thereby reducing exposure of children to lead in drinking water.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA is proposing a requirement that can be satisfied by, depending on the size of the regulated entity, either self-certifying compliance with the SDWA lead prohibition or by achieving a voluntary standard that mirrors the SDWA requirements, such as the NSF/ANSI 372 standard. While EPA is not specifying a technical standard under this proposed rule, EPA is proposing the use of technical standards that will meet the new definition of lead free as a means of demonstrating compliance with this proposal.

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

    EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples as described in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because this action does not establish any specific regulatory requirements that would affect these communities. Instead, it is a proposed rule that codifies existing requirements set forth by Congress regarding the allowable levels of lead in plumbing products, and also includes additional provisions intended to aid in the implementation of those requirements.

    IX. References USHHS, 2012. National Toxicity Program Monograph on Health Effects of Low-level Lead. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. June 2012. Available on the Internet at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/lead/final/monographhealtheffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf. USEPA, 2013a. Summary of the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act and Frequently Asked Questions. December 2013. Available on the Internet at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100M5DB.txt. USEPA, 2013b. Final Report: Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. EPA 600-R-10-075F. June 2013. Available on the Internet at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=255721. USEPA, 2016. Technical Support Document for the Proposed Rule: Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water. EPA 815-R-16-009. December 2016. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indian—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

    40 CFR Part 143

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indian—lands, Water supply.

    Dated: January 4, 2017. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend title 40 chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations parts 141 and 143 as follows:

    PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

    2. Revise the subpart heading for subpart E to read as follows: Subpart E—Special Regulations, Including Monitoring
    § 141.43 [Removed]
    3. Remove § 141.43. PART 143—NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 4. The authority citation for part 143 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.

    5. Revise the part heading for part 143 to read as follows: PART 143—OTHER SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT REGULATIONS 6. Add subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations 7. Redesignate §§ 143.1 through 143.4 as subpart A.
    §§ 143.5-143.10 [Reserved]
    8. Reserve §§ 143.5 through 143.10. 9. Add subpart B to read as follows: Subpart B—Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water Sec. 143.11 Definitions. 143.12 Definition of lead free and calculation methodology. 143.13 Use prohibitions. 143.14 State enforcement of use prohibitions. 143.15 Introduction into commerce prohibitions. 143.16 Exempt uses and labeling of certain exempt use products. 143.17 Required labeling of products that must meet lead free requirements. 143.18 Required labeling of solder and flux that is not lead free. 143.19 Required certification of products. 143.20 Compliance provisions. Subpart B—Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water
    § 143.11 Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this subpart:

    Accredited third party certification body means those bodies that are accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to provide product certification to meet the lead free requirements of not more than a weighted average of 0.25 percent lead content when used with respect to the wetted surfaces, consistent with section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act and § 143.12, such as certification to the NSF/ANSI 372 standard.

    Administrator means the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or his or her authorized representative.

    Affiliated means a person or entity that directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, the person or entity specified. Affiliated persons or entities include, but are not limited to: A parent company and all wholly or partially owned subsidiaries of a parent company, or two or more corporations or family partnerships that have overlap in ownership or control.

    Alloy means a substance composed of two or more metals or of a metal and a nonmetal.

    Coating means a thin layer of material such as paint, epoxy, zinc galvanization, or other material usually applied by spraying or in liquid form to coat internal surfaces of pipes, fittings or fixtures.

    Drinking water cooler means any mechanical device affixed to drinking water supply plumbing which actively cools water for human consumption.

    Fitting means a pipe fitting or plumbing fitting.

    Fixture means a receptacle or device that is connected to a water supply system or discharges to a drainage system or both. Fixtures used for potable uses shall include, but are not limited to: (1) Drinking water coolers, drinking water fountains, drinking water bottle fillers, dishwashers; (2) plumbed in devices such as point-of-use water treatment devices, coffee makers, and refrigerator ice and water dispensers; and (3) water heaters, water pumps, and water tanks, unless such fixtures are not used for potable uses.

    Flux means a substance used for helping to melt or join metals such as by removal of oxides and other coatings or residues from the metals before joining by using solder or other means.

    Importer means any person who introduces into commerce any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, or any solder or flux that is manufactured by a firm located outside of the United States.

    Introduce into commerce or introduction into commerce means the sale or distribution of products, or offering products for sale or distribution in the United States.

    Liner means a rigid lining such as a plastic or copper sleeve that is: (1) Sealed with a permanent barrier to exclude lead-bearing surfaces from water contact; and (2) of sufficient thickness and having physical properties necessary to prevent erosion and cracking for the expected useful life of the product.

    Manufacturer means a person or entity who: (1) Processes or makes a product; or (2) has products processed or made under a contractual arrangement for distribution using their brand name or trademark.

    Nonpotable services means all uses of water that are not potable uses.

    Person means an individual; corporation; company; association; partnership; municipality; or state, federal, or tribal agency (including officers, employees, and agents of any corporation, company, association, municipality, state, tribal, or federal agency).

    Pipe means a conduit or conductor, tubing or hose.

    Pipe fitting means any piece (such as a coupling, elbow, washer, or gasket) used for connecting pipe lengths together or to connect other plumbing pieces together or to change direction.

    Plumbing fitting means a plumbing component that controls the volume and/or directional flow of water, such as kitchen faucets, bathroom lavatory faucets, and valves.

    Potable uses means services or applications that provide water for human ingestion such as for drinking, cooking, food preparation, dishwashing, teeth brushing, or maintaining oral hygiene.

    Product means a pipe, fitting, fixture.

    Solder means a type of metal that is used to join metal parts such as sections of pipe, without melting the existing metal in the parts to be joined. Solder is usually sold or distributed in the form of wire rolls or bars.

    United States includes its commonwealths, districts, states, tribes, and territories.

    Water distribution main means a pipe, typically found under or adjacent to a roadway that supplies water to buildings via service lines.

    § 143.12 Definition of lead free and calculation methodology.

    (a) “Lead free” for the purposes of this subpart means:

    (1) Not containing more than 0.2 percent lead when used with respect to solder and flux; and

    (2) Not more than a weighted average of 0.25 percent lead when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures.

    (b) The weighted average lead content of a pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing fitting, or fixture is calculated by using the following formula: For each wetted component, the percentage of lead in the component is multiplied by the ratio of the wetted surface area of that component to the total wetted surface area of the entire product to arrive at the weighted percentage of lead of the component. The weighted percentage of lead of each wetted component is added together, and the sum of these weighted percentages constitutes the weighted average lead content of the product. The lead content of the material used to produce wetted components is used to determine compliance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For lead content of materials that are provided as a range, the maximum content of the range must be used.

    (c) If a coating, as defined in § 143.11, is applied to the internal surfaces of a pipe, fitting or fixture component, the maximum lead content of both the coating and the alloy must be used to calculate the lead content of the component.

    (d) If a liner, as defined in § 143.11, is manufactured into a pipe, fitting or fixture, the maximum lead content of the liner must be used to calculate the lead content of the component.

    § 143.13 Use prohibitions.

    (a) No person may use any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, any solder or any flux that is not lead free as defined in § 143.12 in the installation or repair of:

    (1) Any public water system; or

    (2) Any plumbing in a residential or nonresidential facility providing water for human consumption.

    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to leaded joints necessary for the repair of cast iron pipes.

    § 143.14 State enforcement of use prohibitions.

    As a condition of receiving a full allotment of Public Water System Supervision grants under section 1443(a) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, states must enforce the requirements of section 1417(a)(1) of Safe Drinking Water Act and § 143.13 through state or local plumbing codes, or such other means of enforcement as the state may determine to be appropriate.

    § 143.15 Introduction into commerce prohibitions.

    It shall be unlawful:

    (a) For any person to introduce into commerce any pipe, or any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, that is not lead free, except for a pipe that is used in manufacturing or industrial processing;

    (b) For any person engaged in the business of selling plumbing supplies in the United States, except manufacturers, to sell solder or flux that is not lead free; and

    (c) For any person to introduce into commerce any solder or flux that is not lead free unless the solder or flux bears a prominent label stating that it is illegal to use the solder or flux in the installation or repair of any plumbing providing water for human consumption.

    § 143.16 Exempt uses and labeling of certain exempt use products.

    The prohibitions in §§ 143.13 and 143.15 shall not apply to the products listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section:

    (a) Pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, or fixtures, including backflow preventers, that are used exclusively for nonpotable services such as manufacturing, industrial processing, irrigation, outdoor watering, or any other uses where the water is not anticipated to be used for human consumption. For the purposes of this subpart, “used exclusively for nonpotable services” means:

    (1) The product is incapable of use in potable services (e.g., physically incompatible with other products that would be needed to convey water for potable uses); or

    (2) The product is clearly labeled, on the product, package, container, or tag with a phrase such as: “Not for use with water for human consumption” or another phrase that conveys the same meaning in plain language.

    (b) Toilets, bidets, urinals, fill valves, flushometer valves, tub fillers, shower valves, fire hydrants, service saddles, water distribution main gate valves that are 2 inches in diameter or larger.

    (c) Clothes washing machines, fire suppression sprinklers, eyewash devices, sump pumps, and emergency drench showers.

    § 143.17 Required labeling of products that must meet lead free requirements.

    (a) Persons that introduce into commerce products that must meet the lead free requirements of section 1417(a)(3)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act and § 143.12 must label such products to indicate that it is in compliance with those requirements. Such labeling must occur by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or prior to introduction into commerce, whichever occurs later.

    (b) Labeling or marking as specified in paragraph (a) of this section must be in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) of this section:

    (1) Packaged, containerized or tagged products must be labeled or marked on the package, container, or tag with a phrase such as: “Conforms with the lead free requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act,” “Lead Free,” or similar terms that clearly convey to users that the product is in compliance with the applicable requirements. Products that are not packaged, containerized or tagged are only required to be marked consistent with requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Shrink wrapping of bulk products solely for the purpose of shipping or storage does not constitute being packaged, containerized, or tagged.

    (2) Products must be directly marked by physically stamping, forging, or printing with indelible ink, except as provided in (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this section. The marking must clearly convey to consumers that the product is lead free, such as “Lead Free,” “LF,” or certification marks. If the marking is “LF” or another abbreviation, symbol or acronym, the product package, container, or tag must associate that marking with a phrase such as “lead free” or “meets lead free requirements.” Product markings should be located where they are visible after product installation when practical.

    (i) If the product is too small for a legible marking in a type face ranging from approximately 8 point to 14 point depending on the method of marking and roughness of product surface, only a product package, container or tag must be labeled or marked.

    (ii) If the visible marking on installed products will adversely impact the visual appeal to consumers of the finished product, the product may be marked in a location not visible after installation.

    (c) For products certified by accredited third party certification bodies, labeling or marking on the product, package, container, tag or some combination of these locations must include:

    (1) The logo or name of the certification body as specified by the specific certification body; and

    (2) The specific certification body's required identifier text to convey lead free or low lead content.

    § 143.18 Required labeling of solder and flux that is not lead-free.

    Solder and flux that is not “lead free” as defined in § 143.12(a)(1) must bear a prominent label stating that it is illegal to use the solder or flux in the installation or repair of any plumbing providing water for human consumption.

    § 143.19 Required certification of products.

    (a) Manufacturers or importers that introduce into commerce products that must meet the lead free requirements of section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act and § 143.12 must ensure that the products are certified to be in compliance as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or prior to product introduction into commerce, whichever occurs later. Such manufacturers or importers must maintain documentation to substantiate the certification.

    (b) Certification of products must be obtained by manufacturers or importers from an accredited third party certification body, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.

    (1) Products certified by an accredited third party certification body must be labeled or marked as specified in § 143.17(c).

    (2) The manufacturer or importers must keep records for all products certified by an accredited third party certification body that include at a minimum: Documentation of certification, dates of certification and expiration. This documentation must be provided upon request to the Administrator as specified in § 143.20(b).

    (c) Manufacturers having fewer than 100 employees or importers sourcing products from or representing manufacturers having fewer than 100 employees may elect to self-certify products in lieu of obtaining certification from an accredited third party certification body. The number of employees includes any persons employed by the manufacturer and any of its affiliated entities. The number of employees must be calculated by averaging the number of persons employed, regardless of part-time, full-time or temporary status by an entity and all of its affiliated entities for each pay period over the entity's latest 12 calendar months, or averaged over the number of months in existence if less than 12 months. Such manufacturers or importers electing to self-certify products must comply with paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section.

    (d) In order for eligible manufacturers or importers to self-certify products, such manufacturers or importers must attest that products are in compliance by developing and maintaining a “certificate of conformity.” The certificate of conformity must be:

    (1) Signed by a responsible corporate officer, a general partner or proprietor, or an authorized representative of a responsible corporate officer, general partner or proprietor; and

    (2) Posted to a Web page with continuing public access in the United States.

    (e) The certificate of conformity must be in English and include:

    (1) Contact information for the manufacturer or importer to include:

    (i) The entity or proprietor name,

    (ii) Street and mailing addresses,

    (iii) Phone number, and

    (iv) Email address.

    For products imported into the United States, the contact information must also be included for the manufacturer;

    (2) A brief listing of the products to include, when applicable, unique identifying information such as model names and numbers;

    (3) A statement attesting that the products meet the lead free requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and 40 CFR part 143, subpart B and also that the manufacturer or importer is eligible to self-certify the product consistent with this regulation;

    (4) A statement indicating how the manufacturer or importer verified conformance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and 40 CFR part 143, subpart B; and

    (5) The signature, date, name and position of the signatory; and if the signatory is an authorized representative of a responsible corporate officer, a general partner or proprietor, the name and position of the responsible corporate officer, a general partner or proprietor.

    (f) Manufacturers or importers that self-certify products must maintain, at a primary place of business within the United States, certificates of conformity and sufficient documentation to confirm that products meet the lead free requirements of this subpart. Sufficient documentation may include: Detailed schematic drawings of the products indicating dimensions, calculations of the weighted average lead content of the product, lead content of materials used in manufacture and other documentation used in verifying the lead content of a plumbing device. This documentation and certificates of conformity must be provided upon request to the Administrator as specified in § 143.20(b).

    (g) The certificate of conformity and documentation must be completed prior to a product's introduction into commerce.

    § 143.20 Compliance provisions.

    (a) Noncompliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act or this subpart may be subject to enforcement. Enforcement actions may include seeking injunctive relief, civil or criminal penalties.

    (b) The Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, request any information deemed necessary to determine whether a person has acted or is acting in compliance with section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act and this subpart. Such information requested must be provided to the Administrator at a time and in a format as may be reasonably determined by the Administrator.

    [FR Doc. 2017-00743 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 702 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0636; FRL-9957-74] RIN 2070-AK23 Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    As required under section 6(b)(1) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposing to establish a risk-based screening process and criteria that EPA will use to identify chemical substances as either High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation, or Low-Priority Substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the time. The proposed rule describes the processes for identifying potential candidates for prioritization, selecting a candidate, screening that candidate against certain criteria, formally initiating the prioritization process, providing opportunities for public comment, and proposing and finalizing designations of priority. Prioritization is the initial step in a new process of existing chemical substance review and risk management activity established under recent amendments to TSCA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0636, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Ryan Schmit, Immediate Office, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0610; email address: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This proposed rule does not propose to establish any requirements on persons or entities outside of the Agency. This action may, however, be of interest to entities that are or may manufacture or import a chemical substance regulated under TSCA (e.g., entities identified under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 325 and 324110). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities and corresponding NAICS codes for entities that may be interested in or affected by this action.

    B. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is proposing to establish the internal processes and criteria by which EPA will identify chemical substances as either High-Priority Substances for risk evaluation, or Low-Priority Substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the time.

    C. Why is the agency taking this action?

    This rulemaking is required by TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A). Prioritization of chemical substances for further evaluation will ensure that the Agency's limited resources are conserved for those chemical substances most likely to present risks, thereby furthering EPA's overall mission to protect health and the environment.

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

    EPA is proposing this rule pursuant to the authority in TSCA section 6(b), 15 U.S.C. 2605(b). See also the discussion in Units II.A and B.

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

    This is a proposed rule that would establish the processes by which EPA intends to designate chemical substances as either High or Low-Priority Substances for risk evaluation. It would not establish any requirements on persons or entities outside of the Agency. EPA did not, therefore, estimate potential incremental impacts from this action.

    F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Background A. Recent Amendments to TSCA

    On June 22, 2016, the President signed into law the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (Pub. L. 114-182), which imposed sweeping reforms to TSCA. The bill received broad bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and its passage was heralded as the most significant update to an environmental law in over 20 years. The amendments give EPA improved authority to take actions to protect people and the environment from the effects of dangerous chemical substances. Additional information on the new law is available on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act.

    When TSCA was originally enacted in 1976, it established an EPA-administered health and safety review process for new chemical substances prior to allowing their entry into the marketplace. However, tens of thousands of chemical substances in existence at that time were “grandfathered in” with no requirement for EPA to ever evaluate their risks to health or the environment. The absence of a review requirement or deadlines for action, coupled with a burdensome statutory standard for taking risk management action on existing chemical substances, resulted in very few chemical substances ever being assessed for safety by EPA, and even fewer subject to restrictions to address identified risks.

    One of the key features of the new law is the requirement that EPA now systematically prioritize and assess existing chemical substances, and manage identified risks. Through a combination of new authorities, a risk-based safety standard, mandatory deadlines for action, and minimum throughput requirements, TSCA effectively creates a “pipeline” by which EPA will conduct existing chemical substances review and management. This new pipeline—from prioritization to risk evaluation to risk management (when warranted)—is intended to drive steady forward progress on the backlog of existing chemical substances left largely unaddressed by the original law. Prioritization is the initial step in this process.

    B. Statutory Requirements for Prioritization

    TSCA section 6(b)(1) requires EPA to establish, by rule, the process and criteria for prioritizing chemical substances for risk evaluation. Specifically, the law requires EPA to establish “a risk-based screening process, including criteria for designating chemical substances as high-priority substances for risk evaluations or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the time.” TSCA sections 6(b)(1) through (3) provide further specificity on both the process and criteria, including preferences for certain chemical substances that EPA must apply, the procedural steps, definitions of High-Priority Substances and Low-Priority Substances, and screening criteria that EPA must consider in designating a chemical substance as either High-Priority Substances or Low-Priority Substances. The statutory requirements related to prioritization are described in further detail in this unit.

    1. Prioritization Steps. Based on TSCA sections 6(b)(1) through (3), EPA is proposing to include four steps or phases in prioritization: (1) Pre-Prioritization, (2) Initiation, (3) Proposed Designation, and (4) Final Designation. During the Pre-Prioritization phase, EPA is proposing to apply the statutory preferences in TSCA section 6(b)(2), along with other criteria, to narrow the pool of potential candidates, and identify a single chemical substance (or category of chemical substances) to screen against the statutory criteria in TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A). Aside from the statutory preferences listed, the law does not direct or limit EPA in how it is to ultimately select a chemical substance on which to initiate prioritization, requiring only that the process be “risk-based.” At the Initiation step, EPA must announce a candidate chemical substance and give the public a 90-day comment period to submit relevant information. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(C)(i). At the Proposed Designation step, EPA must propose to designate a chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substance or a Low-Priority Substance, publish the proposed designation and the information, analysis, and basis used to make the designation, and take public comment a second time for 90 days. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(C)(ii). At Final Designation, EPA must either finalize a High-Priority Substance designation and initiate a risk evaluation, or finalize a Low-Priority Substance designation in which case it will not conduct a risk evaluation on the chemical substance unless and until information leads EPA to revisit that priority designation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(3)(A) and (B).

    2. Screening criteria and statutory preferences. The statute defines a High-Priority Substance as one that the Administrator concludes, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant by the Administrator. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(B)(i). Conversely, the law specifies that a Low-Priority Substance is one that the Administrator concludes, based on information sufficient to establish, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, does not meet the standard for designating a chemical substance a High-Priority Substance. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(B)(ii).

    In designating the priority of a chemical substance, EPA must screen a candidate chemical substance against certain criteria specified in TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A). These include the hazard and exposure potential of the chemical substance (e.g., persistence and bioaccumulation, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, and storage near significant sources of drinking water), the conditions of use or significant changes in the conditions of use of the chemical substance, and the volume or significant changes in the volume of the chemical substance manufactured or processed. EPA interprets “significant changes in” conditions of use to have relevance primarily in the context of revising a priority designation. With respect to an initial prioritization decision, any changes in use that have occurred in the past would already be captured by the concept of “conditions of use,” as defined in TSCA section 3.

    The results of this screen will help inform EPA's proposed priority designation. However, given that the statutory deadlines are triggered at the initiation of prioritization, and that EPA will want to have a good understanding of the chemical substance before triggering those deadlines, EPA will consider these screening criteria earlier in the process. As discussed in more detail in Unit III., EPA is therefore proposing to include the screening review in the rule as part of the pre-prioritization phase.

    In designating High-Priority Substances, EPA is to give preference to chemical substances that are listed in the 2014 Update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments (Ref. 1) that: (1) Have persistence and bioaccumulation scores of 3; and (2) are known human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(D). The law further requires that 50% of all ongoing risk evaluations be drawn from the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments, meaning that, at least at the outset of the program, EPA will need to draw at least 50% of High-Priority Substance designations from the same list. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(B).

    3. Metals and metal compounds. When prioritizing metals or metal compounds, EPA must use the March 2007 Framework for Metals Risk Assessment of the Office of the Science Advisor (Ref. 2) (or a successor document that addresses appropriate considerations for conducting a risk assessment on a metal or metal compound and is peer reviewed by the Science Advisory Board). 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(E). However, during the prioritization process, EPA will not be conducting chemical risk assessments; and, consequently, much of this guidance will not be directly relevant. EPA interprets this provision to ensure that the analysis and considerations during the prioritization process take into account the special attributes and behaviors of metals and metal compounds that are relevant to judgments of risk. For example, this might include consideration of the document's Key Principles that differentiate inorganic metals and metal compounds from organic and organometallic compounds, and their unique attributes, properties, issues, and processes. Because EPA will not conduct risk assessments on metals or metal compounds for purposes of prioritization, EPA will not refer to sections that provide guidance on how to incorporate the Key Principles into risk assessments.

    4. Timeframe. TSCA requires that the prioritization process last between nine and twelve months. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(C). This timeframe takes on particular significance, given that the statute does not authorize EPA to “pause” or delay the prioritization once it has been initiated, and that a final High-Priority Substance designation results in the chemical substance moving immediately into a risk evaluation process that must be generally completed within three years. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(G).

    5. Opportunities for public participation. As already mentioned, TSCA requires EPA to provide two 90-day public comment periods during prioritization—one following initiation, and a second following a proposed designation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(C)(i) and (ii). TSCA further requires that EPA include a process for extending the comment deadline for up to three months in order to receive or evaluate information coming from a TSCA section 4 test order. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(C)(iii). These public comment periods, coupled with the nine month minimum timeframe for prioritization, ensure that the public will be on notice of EPA's intention to further evaluate a chemical's risks and will have opportunity to engage early in the process before the risk evaluation has started.

    6. Default to High-Priority Substance Designation. If, after prioritization has been initiated, the public has been given an opportunity to submit relevant information, and EPA has extended the comment period pursuant to TSCA section 6(b)(1)(C)(iii) in order to receive or evaluate additional information, EPA determines that the available information is insufficient to enable the designation of the chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance, the statute requires EPA to propose a High-Priority Substance designation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(C)(iii). Based in part on this provision, and as discussed further in Unit III, EPA is proposing to require a default-to-high in all cases in which insufficient information exists to designate the chemical as a Low-Priority Substance at both the proposed and final designation.

    7. Initial ten chemicals for risk evaluation. TSCA requires EPA to, within six months of enactment, ensure that risk evaluations are being conducted on ten chemical substances drawn from the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments, and to publish a list of those chemical substances during that same period. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(A). The initial ten chemical substances are not subject to the prioritization process or the procedures in this rule. However, completion of these risk evaluations triggers the ongoing designation requirement discussed in Unit II.B.8.

    8. Ongoing designations. Upon completion of a risk evaluation (other than those requested by a manufacturer pursuant to TSCA section 6(b)(4)(C)(ii)), EPA must designate at least one additional High-Priority Substance to take its place. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(C). Because designation as a High-Priority Substance results in the chemical substance moving immediately to risk evaluation, this provision prevents the number of existing chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation from ever decreasing over time. In addition, EPA must designate at least twenty chemical substances as High-Priority Substances by three and one half years after enactment, effectively doubling the number of chemical substances in the review pipeline. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(B). The statute also requires that at least twenty chemical substances be designated as Low-Priority Substances by three and one half years after enactment, but without a comparable requirement to continue designating additional Low-Priority Substances after that. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(B), (b)(3)(C). Although EPA must continue to prioritize and evaluate chemical substances “at a pace consistent with the ability of the Administrator to complete risk evaluations in accordance with the deadlines,” this provision does not modify the minimum throughput or other ongoing designation requirements for High-Priority Substances. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(C). It does, however, suggest that EPA must have adequate resources should EPA plan to designate more than twenty chemical substances as High-Priority Substances at any given time.

    9. Revision of designation. TSCA allows the Administrator to revise the designation of a Low-Priority Substance to a High-Priority Substance “based on information made available to the Administrator.” 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(3)(B). This provision does not restrict the basis for a revision to the discovery or receipt of new information. For example, EPA could also justify a revision based on information that was available but was not considered at the time of the original prioritization decision, or information that was considered but which EPA now views differently as a result of changes in scientific understanding (e.g., changes in scientific understanding of how a chemical can enter or interact with the human body).

    10. Other relevant statutory requirements. TSCA imposes new requirements on EPA in a number of different areas that EPA is not proposing to incorporate or otherwise address in this proposed rule. For example, amendments to TSCA section 4 require EPA to “. . . reduce and replace, to the extent practicable, [. . .] the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances . . .” and to develop a strategic plan to promote such alternative test methods. 15 U.S.C. 2603(h). Likewise, TSCA section 26 requires, to the extent that EPA makes a decision based on science under TSCA sections 4, 5, or 6, that EPA use certain scientific standards and base those decisions on the weight of the scientific evidence. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h) and (i). While these requirements are relevant to the prioritization of chemical substances, EPA is not obliged to include them in this proposed rule. By their express terms, these statutory requirements apply to EPA's decisions under TSCA section 6, without the need for regulatory action. Moreover, in contrast to TSCA section 6, Congress has not directed EPA to implement these other requirements “by rule;” it is well-established that where Congress has declined to require rulemaking, the implementing agency has complete discretion to determine the appropriate method by which to implement those provisions. E.g., United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956).

    A number of stakeholders raised questions as to whether EPA should define a number of important terms in this rule (e.g., “best available science”, “weight-of-the-evidence”, “sufficiency of information”, “unreasonable risk”, and “reasonably available information”). Many of the terms used in the proposed rule are not novel concepts and are already in use, and their meaning is discussed extensively in existing Agency guidance. For example, extensive descriptions for the phrases “best available science”, “weight-of-the-evidence”, and “sufficiency of information” can be found in EPA's Risk Characterization Handbook (Ref. 3), and in other existing Agency guidance.

    EPA believes further defining these and other terms in the proposed rule is unnecessary and ultimately problematic. These terms have and will continue to evolve with changing scientific methods and innovation. Codifying specific definitions for these phrases in this rule may inhibit the flexibility and responsiveness of the Agency to quickly adapt to and implement changing science. The Agency intends to use existing guidance definitions and to update definitions and guidance as necessary.

    While EPA is seeking public comment on all aspects of this proposed rule, the Agency is specifically requesting public input on this issue. The Agency welcomes public comments regarding the pros and cons of codifying these or other definitions and/or approaches for these or any other terms. EPA encourages commenters to suggest alternative definitions the Agency should consider for codification in this procedural rule. Please explain your views as clearly as possible, providing specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternate wording, where applicable.

    C. Prioritization Under the 2012 TSCA Work Plan Methodology

    Prioritization of chemical substances for review is not a novel concept for the Agency. In 2012, EPA released the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document in which EPA described the process the Agency intended to use to identify potential candidate chemical substances for near-term review and assessment under TSCA (Ref. 4). EPA also published an initial list of TSCA Work Plan chemicals identified for further assessment under TSCA as part of its chemical safety program in 2012 (Ref. 5), and an updated list of chemical substances for further assessment in 2014 (Ref. 1). The process for identifying these chemical substances was based on a combination of hazard, exposure, and persistence and bioaccumulation characteristics.

    Congress expressly recognized the validity of EPA's existing prioritization methodology for the TSCA Work Plan. For example, the law requires that EPA give certain preferences to chemical substances listed on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(D). Moreover, the law requires that at least 50 percent of all ongoing risk evaluations be drawn from the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(B). The statutory screening criteria in TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A) also significantly overlaps with the considerations in the Work Plan methodology (e.g., persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, carcinogenicity, etc.).

    However, there are a number of key differences between EPA's TSCA Work Plan process and the prioritization process that TSCA now requires. First, the Work Plan process involved culling through thousands of chemical substances to create a list that EPA could, over time and without prescribed deadlines, focus its limited resources on. The TSCA Work Plan did not require EPA to assess listed chemical substances, and included no deadlines for completing risk assessments or addressing identified risks. Prioritization under this proposed rule will involve a similar culling, but upon designating a chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance, the Agency must start a risk evaluation, and generally complete that evaluation within a specified amount of time. If EPA determines in the risk evaluation that a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, EPA must also initiate a risk management rulemaking subject to statutory deadlines. 15 U.S.C. 2605(c). As such, EPA will need to be judicious in selecting the chemical substances that go into prioritization.

    Further, while chemical substances listed on the TSCA Work Plan were likely to be well-characterized for hazard and have at least some information indicating potential exposure, Work Plan chemical substance assessments have generally focused on specific chemical uses. Given the statutory deadlines, EPA generally intends to ensure it has a more complete set of data upfront that would allow EPA to evaluate a chemical substance under all conditions of use (a broader scope) within the statutory deadlines. For chemical substances with insufficient information to conduct a risk evaluation, EPA generally expects to pursue a significant amount of data gathering before initiating prioritization.

    Finally, the TSCA Work Plan process focused solely on identifying potential high risk chemical substances for further review. Because the statute also requires the identification of Low-Priority Substances—those chemical substances that EPA has determined, based on sufficient evidence, do not warrant further review at the time—EPA will need to undertake new and different analyses than it has done to date under the TSCA Work Plan.

    While EPA has drawn from the TSCA Work Plan methodology and EPA's experience in implementing that process in developing this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to tailor the process for prioritization to the specific requirements in the new statute.

    D. Stakeholder Involvement

    On August 10, 2016, EPA held a one day public meeting to hear from stakeholders to better understand their viewpoints on the development of the prioritization rule. The meeting began with a presentation from EPA on how the Agency has prioritized chemicals for further review under the TSCA Work Plan methodology. The remainder of the day was reserved for public comment. Commenters had approximately four minutes to present their comments orally and there was a total of 28 oral comments on the prioritization rule. Further information is available on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/meetings-and-webinars-amended-toxic-substances-control.

    Stakeholders were also able to provide written comments. EPA received 50 written comments on the prioritization rule, although many of those who presented orally also submitted written versions as well. These comments and a transcript of the meeting are accessible in the meeting's docket, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0399, available online at https://www.regulations.gov/.

    The commenters included representatives from industry, environmental groups, academics, private citizens, trade associations, and health care representatives, and provided a diversity of perspectives. Overall, there was a general expression of support for the new law and EPA's inclusive approach to implementation to date. Most groups agreed that the prioritization rule had the potential to increase transparency in EPA's chemical substance review and management process, and urged the Agency to work towards this goal.

    A number of commenters suggested codifying specific details in the rule, such as a system for scoring and ranking chemical substances; a listing of the specific hazard and exposure information upon which EPA will base prioritization decisions; and definitions of terms referenced in the statute like “weight of evidence” and “best available science.” Others encouraged EPA to keep the rules focused on a framework for general process, to retain Agency discretion where appropriate, and to reserve specific scientific considerations for Agency guidance.

    EPA considered all of these comments in the development of this proposed rule, and welcomes additional feedback from stakeholders on the Agency's proposed process for chemical substance prioritization as presented in this document.

    III. Summary of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule incorporates all of the elements required by statute, but also supplements those requirements with additional criteria the Agency expects to consider, some clarifications for greater transparency, and additional procedural steps to ensure effective implementation. Specific components of the approach are discussed in this unit. EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking.

    A. Policy Objective

    The prioritization process under TSCA is the principal gateway to risk evaluation. EPA is ultimately making a judgment as to whether or not a particular chemical substance warrants further assessment. As a general matter, the overall objective of the process should be to guide the Agency towards identifying the High-Priority Substances that have the greatest hazard and exposure potential first. EPA may also consider the relative hazard and exposure of a potential candidate's likely substitute(s) in order to avoid moving the market to a chemical substance of equal or greater risks. However, the prioritization process is not intended to be an exact scoring or ranking exercise and EPA is not proposing such a system in this rule. The precise order in which EPA identifies High-Priority Substances (all of which must meet the same statutory standard) should not be allowed to slow the Agency's progress towards fully evaluating the risks from those chemical substances. Further, the level of analysis necessary to support an exact ranking system is not appropriate at the prioritization stage, where the sole outcome is a decision on whether EPA will further evaluate the chemical substance. EPA intends to conserve its resources and the Agency's deeper analytic efforts for the actual risk evaluation. This policy objective is stated directly in the proposed rule.

    Low-Priority Substance designations serve some of the same policy objectives. Although the statute does not require EPA to designate more than twenty Low-Priority Substances, doing so ensures that chemical substances with clearly low hazard and exposure potential are taken out of consideration for further assessment, thereby conserving resources for the chemical substances with the greatest potential risks. There is also value in identifying Low-Priority Substances as part of this process, as it gives the public notice of chemical substances for which potential risks are likely low or nonexistent, and industry some insight into which chemical substances are likely not to be regulated under TSCA.

    B. Scope of Designations

    EPA will designate the priority of a “chemical substance,” as a whole, under this established process, and will not limit its designation to a specific use or subset of uses of a chemical substance. EPA is proposing this in response to clear statutory directives: The relevant provisions of TSCA section 6 repeatedly refer to both the designation and evaluation of “chemical substances” under the “conditions of use.” “Conditions of use” are broadly defined as “the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.” 15 U.S.C. 2602.

    Although some commenters at the public meeting suggested that the prioritization process should allow EPA to designate a specific use of a chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance or a Low-Priority Substance, EPA does not interpret the statute to support such an interpretation. To the contrary, the addition of the phrase “conditions of use” (emphasis added) was intended to move the Agency away from its past practice of assessing only narrow uses of a chemical substance, towards a comprehensive approach to chemical substance management. While EPA clearly retains some discretion in determining those conditions of use, as a matter of law, EPA considers that it would be an abuse of that discretion to simply disregard known, intended, or reasonably foreseen uses in its analyses.

    C. Timeframe

    As discussed in Unit II., TSCA section 6(b)(1)(C) requires that the prioritization process last between nine and twelve months. EPA is proposing in this rule that initiation of the prioritization begins upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register that identifies a chemical substance for prioritization and provides the results of the screening review. The process is complete upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing a final priority designation. Accordingly, the proposed rule specifies that the process—from initiation to final designation—shall last between 9 and 12 months.

    This timeframe serves dual purposes. The minimum 9-month timeframe ensures that the general public; potentially-affected industries; state, tribal and local governments; environmental and health non-governmental organizations; and others have ample notice of upcoming federal action on a given chemical substance, and opportunity to engage with EPA early in the process. The 12-month maximum timeframe, coupled with the default-to-high provision discussed later, keeps the existing chemical substances review pipeline in a forward motion, and prevents EPA from getting mired in analysis before ever reaching the risk evaluation step.

    D. Categories of Chemical Substances

    TSCA section 26 provides EPA with authority to take action on categories of chemical substances. 15 U.S.C. 2625(c). “Category of Chemical Substances” is defined at 15 U.S.C. 2625(c)(2)(A). Although the proposed rule most often references “chemical substances,” EPA is also proposing to include a clear statement in the regulation that nothing in the proposed rule shall be construed as a limitation on EPA's authority to take action with respect to categories of chemical substances, and that, where appropriate, EPA can prioritize and evaluate categories of chemical substances.

    E. Chemicals Subject to Prioritization

    Generally, all chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory are subject to prioritization. TSCA contemplates that, over time, all chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory will be prioritized into either High- or Low-Priority Substances, and that all High-Priority Substances will be evaluated. EPA notes that chemical substances newly added to the TSCA Inventory following EPA's completion of pre-manufacture review under section 5 of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604) are also candidates for prioritization, although EPA expects that such chemical substances are not likely to be High-Priority candidates in light of the risk-related determination that the Agency must make pursuant to TSCA section 5(a)(3).

    TSCA further requires EPA to go through a separate process of determining which chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory are still actively being manufactured, and EPA has initiated a separate rulemaking for that purpose (RIN 2070-AK24). This distinction will inform EPA's exposure judgments during the prioritization process. However, there is nothing in TSCA that prohibits EPA from initiating the prioritization process on an “inactive” chemical substance and ultimately designating that chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substances (e.g., if exposures of concern arise from ongoing uses) or Low-Priority Substance.

    F. Pre-Prioritization Considerations

    As discussed earlier, TSCA requires that EPA establish a process, including criteria for designating a chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substances or Low-Priority Substance. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1). Aside from the statutory preferences for chemical substances on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan (Ref. 1), the statute leaves EPA with broad discretion to choose which chemical substance to put into that process. Accordingly, this proposed rule includes a discussion of the criteria EPA expects to use to cull through the chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory. These include criteria that will be used to identify potential candidates for High-Priority Substances or Low-Priority Substances, and that describe how the extent of available information on potential candidates will affect whether they are selected for prioritization.

    For example, in identifying potential candidates for High-Priority Substance designations, EPA is proposing to seek to identify chemical substances where available information suggests that the chemical substance may present a hazard and that exposure is present under “one or more conditions of use,” but where an “unreasonable risk” determination cannot be made without a more extensive or complete assessment in a risk evaluation. EPA interprets the statutory definition of a High-Priority Substance (“. . . may present an unreasonable risk [. . .] because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure . . .”) to set a fairly low bar, and EPA expects that a large number of chemical substances will meet this definition. Although EPA will prioritize a “chemical substance” as a whole, EPA may base its identification of a potential candidate as a High-Priority Substance, and ultimately the proposed designation, on a single condition of use, provided the hazard and exposure associated with that single use support such a designation. This proposal is based on the statutory definition of a High-Priority Substance, which is clear that the standard for the chemical as a whole can be met based on a single condition of use (“. . . because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure . . .”).

    Conversely, in identifying potential candidates for Low-Priority Substance designation, EPA is proposing that it will seek to identify chemical substances where the information indicates that hazard and exposure potential for “all conditions of use” are so low that EPA can confidently set that chemical substance aside without doing further evaluation. By comparison, then, TSCA's definition of Low-Priority Substance (“. . . based on sufficient information, such substance does not meet the standard for [. . .] a high-priority substance . . .”) is fairly rigorous, and effectively requires EPA to determine that under no condition of use does the chemical meet the High-Priority Substance standard. Consequently, EPA expects it will be more difficult to support such designations. Unlike High-Priority Substances, EPA will not be able to designate a chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance without first looking at all of the conditions of use. While not determinative, EPA believes that its Safer Chemicals Ingredients List (SCIL) (Ref. 6) will be a good starting point for identifying potential candidates for Low-Priority Substance designations.

    EPA is also proposing to include the following list of additional exposure and hazard considerations that can be used to narrow the field of potential candidates: (1) Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic; (2) Used in children's products; (3) Used in consumer products; (4) Detected in human and/or ecological biomonitoring programs; (5) Potentially of concern for children's health; (6) High acute and chronic toxicity; (7) Probable or known carcinogen; (8) Neurotoxicity; or (9) Other emerging exposure and hazard concerns to human health or the environment, as determined by the Agency. These criteria are drawn from EPA's 2012 TSCA Work Plan methodology (Ref. 4), which, as discussed earlier, was the process EPA had been using to prioritize chemical substances for assessment under TSCA. EPA will evaluate one or more of these nine considerations, and chemical substances that meet one or more of these criteria may be identified as potential candidates for High-Priority Substance designations. For example, if a chemical substance is highly toxic and used in consumer products, EPA may wish to consider that chemical substance as a potential High-Priority Substance candidate. EPA may also choose to identify potential candidates based on other criteria that suggest the chemical substance may otherwise present a human health or environmental concern, as contemplated in the “catch-all” provision (9). The fact that a chemical substance meets one of these criteria is not determinative of an outcome, including whether or not EPA will select the chemical substance to go into the prioritization process and/or the priority designation that the chemical substance will ultimately receive. Conversely, chemical substances that meet none of these criteria may be good potential candidates for Low-Priority Substance designation. The considerations are intended to serve as a general guide for the Agency, based on EPA's current understanding of important considerations regarding potential chemical risk. It should also be noted that while these considerations are drawn from EPA's 2012 Work Plan methodology (Ref. 4), EPA will apply them differently for prioritization. In the TSCA Work Plan context, only chemical substances that met these initial criteria were eligible for listing on Work Plan. For purposes of prioritization under TSCA, the considerations do not determine eligibility, but rather are designed to help EPA to narrow its focus.

    G. Information Availability

    Another key consideration in the pre-prioritization phase is the existence and availability of risk-related information on a candidate or potential candidate chemical substance. Because EPA must complete its prioritization process within 12 months once prioritization has been initiated for a chemical substance, immediately initiate a risk evaluation for High-Priority Substance, and complete the risk evaluation within three years of initiation, EPA cannot assume that it will be able to require the generation of critical information during these time frames. Furthermore, the statute does not grant EPA the discretion to significantly delay either of these processes, pending development of information. Consequently, prior to initiating the prioritization process for a chemical substance, EPA will generally review the available hazard and exposure-related information, and evaluate whether that information would be sufficient to allow EPA to complete both prioritization and risk evaluation processes. As part of such an evaluation, EPA expects to consider the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the available information. To the extent the information is not currently available or is insufficient, EPA will determine whether or not information can be developed and collected, reviewed and incorporated into analyses and decisions in a timely manner. The proposed rule makes it clear that sufficiency of available information is likely to be a crucial factor in the selection of the chemical substances that EPA chooses to put into the prioritization process.

    As noted, if information gaps are identified during the prioritization or risk evaluation processes, EPA expects that it could be difficult to require the development of necessary chemical substance information, and receive, evaluate, and incorporate that information into analyses and decisions within the statutory timeframes. Tests necessary for risk evaluation, for example, could take months or years to develop and execute, plus additional time for EPA to issue the order or rule, and to collect, review and incorporate the new information. To avoid such a scenario, EPA believes that it will need to do a significant amount of upfront data gathering and review. This approach ensures that EPA stays on track to meet relevant statutory deadlines—particularly those for risk evaluation.

    The proposed rule makes clear that EPA generally expects to use this new authority, as appropriate and necessary, to gather the requisite information prior to initiating prioritization. This could include, as appropriate, TSCA information collection, testing, and subpoena authorities, including those under TSCA sections 4, 8, and 11(c), to develop needed information.

    Given the importance of ensuring that sufficient information is available to conduct the prioritization and risk evaluation processes, EPA is proposing to include this consideration during the earliest stage in the process: During the identification of potential candidates. However, this criterion remains relevant even after EPA has selected a candidate and screened that chemical substance against the statutory criteria in TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A). Thus, if at any time prior to the publication of a notice in the Federal Register initiating prioritization, EPA determines that more information will be necessary to support a prioritization designation or a subsequent risk evaluation, EPA can choose not to initiate prioritization for that chemical substance pending development of additional information.

    H. Selection and Screening of a Candidate Chemical Substance

    As noted in Unit II., TSCA requires that EPA give preference to chemical substances listed in the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that (1) have a Persistence and Bioaccumulation Score of 3; and (2) are known human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity. TSCA section 6(b)(2)(B) further requires that 50 percent of all ongoing risk evaluations be drawn from the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments, meaning that EPA will need to draw at least 50 percent of High-Priority Substance candidates from the same list. By operation of the statute, TSCA requires that all TSCA Work Plan chemical substances eventually be prioritized. However, it is premature to presume that those chemical substances will necessarily be prioritized as High-Priority Substances, or that EPA would find unreasonable risk.

    Aside from these statutory preferences, however, TSCA does not limit how EPA must ultimately select a candidate chemical substance to put into the prioritization process. EPA is proposing that it will select a candidate—for either High-Priority Substances or Low-Priority Substance—based on the policy objectives described in Unit III.A. and the pre-prioritization considerations described in Unit III. F. and G. The development of the proposed rule, including these policy objectives, considerations and criteria, was informed by EPA's experience implementing the 2012 TSCA Work Plan methodology, which has been the Agency's primary tool for identifying candidate chemical substances for further assessment under TSCA. In addition, EPA fully recognizes the important role that stakeholders can play in helping the Agency to identify candidates for prioritization or to better understand the unique uses or characteristics of a particular chemical. EPA continues to welcome this type of engagement and dialogue early in the process, including during the pre-prioritization phase. While the proposed rule provides multiple opportunities for public feedback during the prioritization process, EPA is requesting comment on whether and how EPA should solicit additional input at the pre-prioritization phase. Further, given EPA's objective to avoid simply moving the market to substitute chemical substances of equal or greater risks, EPA requests comment on whether and how information on the availability of chemical substitutes should be taken into account during this phase of the prioritization process.

    Once a single candidate chemical substance (or category of chemical substances) is selected, EPA will screen the selected candidate against the specific criteria and considerations in TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A). Those criteria and considerations are: (1) The chemical substance's hazard and exposure potential; (2) the chemical substance's persistence and bioaccumulation; (3) potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (4) storage of the chemical substance near significant sources of drinking water; (5) the chemical substance's conditions of use or significant changes in conditions of use; and (6) the chemical substance's production volume or significant changes in production volume. Because TSCA does not prohibit EPA from expanding the statutory screening criteria, the proposed rule also provides an additional criterion: (7) Any other risk-based criteria relevant to the designation of the chemical substance's priority, in EPA's discretion. This final criterion allows the screening review to adapt with future changes in our understanding of science and chemical risks. In addition, EPA fully recognizes the important role that stakeholders can play in helping the Agency to identify candidates for prioritization or to better understand the unique uses or characteristics of a particular chemical. EPA continues to welcome this type of engagement and dialogue early in the process, including during the pre-prioritization phase. While the proposed rule provides multiple opportunities for public feedback during the prioritization process, EPA is requesting comment on whether and how EPA should solicit additional input at the pre-prioritization phase.

    The screening review is not a risk evaluation, but rather a review of available information on the chemical substance that relates to the screening criteria. EPA expects to evaluate all relevant sources of information while conducting the screening review, including, as appropriate, the hazard and exposure sources listed in Appendices A and B of the 2012 TSCA Work Plan methodology (Ref. 4). Ultimately, the screening review and other considerations during the pre-prioritization phase are meant to inform EPA's decisions on (1) whether to initiate the prioritization process on a particular chemical substance, and (2) once initiated, the proposed designation of that chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substances or Low-Priority Substance.

    I. Initiation of Prioritization

    The prioritization process officially begins, for purposes of triggering the nine to twelve month statutory timeframe, when EPA publishes a notice in the Federal Register identifying a chemical substance for prioritization. The proposed rule also specifies that EPA will publish the results of the screening review in the Federal Register, describing the information, analysis and basis used to conduct that review and providing in the docket copies of relevant information not otherwise protected as confidential business information under TSCA section 14. Publication of the notice in the Federal Register also initiates a 90-day public comment period. For each chemical substance, EPA will open a docket to facilitate receipt of public comments and access to publicly available information throughout this process. Interested persons can submit information regarding the results of the screening review or any other information relevant to the chemical substance. Of particular interest to EPA will be information related to “conditions of use” that are missing from the screening results. EPA will consider all relevant information received during this comment period. Consistent with TSCA section 6(b)(1)(C)(iii), the proposed rule further allows EPA to extend this initial public comment period for up to 3 months to receive and/or evaluate information developed from a test order, commensurate with EPA's need for additional time to receive and/or evaluate this information. As a practical matter, EPA is unlikely to often extend this initial public comment, given EPA's intention to ensure that all or most of the necessary information is available before initiating the prioritization process. Further, a three month window would not often provide a sufficient time to gather, let alone consider, new test data for the prioritization process. This is generally expected to be the case even with the authority to more quickly collect such information under the new test order authority in TSCA section 4.

    J. Proposed Priority Designation

    Based on the results of the screening review, relevant information received from the public in the initial comment period, and other information as appropriate, EPA will propose to designate the chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substance or Low-Priority Substance, as those terms are defined in TSCA. In making this proposed designation, as directed by the statute, EPA will not consider costs or other non-risk factors.

    This proposed rule provides that EPA will publish the proposed designation in the Federal Register, along with an identification of the information, analysis and basis used to support a proposed designation, in a form and manner that EPA deems appropriate, and provide a second comment period of 90 days, during which time the public may submit comments on EPA's proposed designation. EPA proposes to use the same docket for this step of the process. Because the supporting documentation for a proposed High-Priority Substance designation is likely to foreshadow what will go into a scoping document for risk evaluation, EPA will be particularly interested in early comments on the accuracy of scope-related information such as the chemical's “conditions of use.”

    In the event of insufficient information at the proposed designation step, EPA is proposing to designate a chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance. EPA expects this situation to occur infrequently based on its application of the criteria and considerations during the pre-prioritization phase. However, if for some reason the information available to EPA is insufficient to support a proposed designation of the chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance, including after any extension of the initial public comment period, consistent with the statute, the proposed rule requires EPA to propose to designate the chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance. The statute requires that the prioritization process lead to one of two outcomes by the end of the 12-month deadline: A High-Priority Substance designation or a Low-Priority Substance designation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(B). There is no third option to allow EPA to either require the development of additional information or otherwise toll this deadline. Further, the statute specifically requires that a Low-Priority Substance designation be based on “information sufficient to establish” that a chemical substance meets the definition. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(B)(ii). There is no comparable statutory requirement for High-Priority Substance designations. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(B)(i). It is also relevant that the effect of designating a chemical as High-Priority Substance is that EPA further evaluates the chemical substance; by contrast, a Low-Priority Substance designation is a final Agency determination that no further evaluation is warranted—a determination that constitutes final agency action, subject to judicial review. 15 U.S.C. 2618(a)(1)(C)(i).

    The logical implication of this statutory structure is that scientific uncertainty in this process (including as a result of insufficient information) is to weigh in favor of a High-Priority Substance designation, as it is merely an interim step that ensures that the chemical will be further evaluated. EPA's proposal would also ensure that this process would not create any incentives for parties to withhold readily available information, or inadvertently discourage the voluntary generation of data, as could occur were EPA to establish, for example, a default designation to Low-Priority. As a practical matter, however, EPA expects this situation to occur infrequently, based on its proposed criteria and considerations that will generally ensure that sufficient information is available to conduct a risk evaluation before initiating prioritization. Priority designations, whether they were based on sufficient information or a lack of sufficient information, are neither an affirmation of risk nor safety. EPA therefore recognizes that all priority designations will need to be carefully communicated to the public.

    For proposed designations as Low-Priority Substances, EPA is proposing to require that all comments that could be raised on the issues in the proposed designation must be presented during the comment period. Any issues not raised will be considered to have been waived, and may not form the basis for an objection or challenge in any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding. This is a well-established principle of administrative law and practice, e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1290-1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and the need for such a provision is reinforced by the statutory deadlines under which EPA must operate here. EPA is restricting this to Low-Priority Substance designations, as it is the last opportunity for public input before EPA's action becomes final, and thus it is imperative that any issues are shared during this public comment period. By contrast, designation of a chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance is not final agency action. The statute mandates additional opportunities for public input during the risk evaluation process, and EPA does not consider it appropriate to restrict the public's ability to comment during these subsequent processes based on this early phase proceeding.

    K. Final Priority Designation

    After considering any additional information collected during the proposed designation step, as appropriate, the last step in the prioritization process is for EPA to finalize its designation of a chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substance or a Low-Priority Substance. The proposed rule specifies that EPA will publish the priority designation in the Federal Register, and will use the same docket. Again, TSCA prohibits costs or other non-risk factors from being considered in this designation. And, as with the proposed designation step, if information available to EPA remains insufficient to support the final designation of the chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance, EPA will finalize the designation as a High-Priority Substance. Although final High-Priority designations based on insufficient information are unlikely for all the reasons described in Unit III.J., such a designation would require EPA to conduct a risk evaluation on that substance, and to support the risk evaluation with adequate information. EPA would need to develop or require development of the necessary information and complete the risk evaluation within the 3-year statutory deadline.

    L. Repopulation of High-Priority Substances

    TSCA requires EPA to finalize a designation for at least one new High-Priority Substance upon completion of a risk evaluation for another chemical substance, other than a risk evaluation that was requested by a manufacturer. Because the timing for the completion of risk evaluation and/or the prioritization process will be difficult to predict, EPA intends to satisfy this 1-off-1-on replacement obligation as follows: In the notice published in the Federal Register finalizing the designation of a new High-Priority Substance, EPA will identify the complete or near-complete risk evaluation that the new High-Priority Substance will replace. So long as the designation occurs within a reasonable time before or after the completion of the risk evaluation, this will satisfy Congress' intent while avoiding unnecessary delay and the logistical challenges that would be associated with more perfectly aligning a High-Priority Substance designation with the completion of a risk evaluation.

    M. Effect of Final Priority Designation

    Final designation of a chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance requires EPA to immediately begin a risk evaluation on that chemical substance. It is important to note that High-Priority Substance designation does not mean that the Agency has determined that the chemical substance presents a risk to human health or the environment—only that the Agency intends to consider the chemical substance for further risk review and evaluation. A High-Priority Substance designation is not a final agency action and is not subject to judicial review or review under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

    Final designation of a chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance means that a risk evaluation of the chemical substance is not warranted at the time, but does not preclude EPA from later revising the designation, if warranted. Notably, a Low-Priority Substance designation is explicitly subject to judicial review. 15 U.S.C. 2618(a)(1)(C).

    N. Revision of Designation

    TSCA provides that EPA may revise a final designation of a chemical substance from a Low-Priority Substance to a High-Priority Substance at any time based on information available to the Agency. The proposed rule outlines the process the Agency will take to revise such a designation. Specifically, EPA would (1) re-screen the chemical substance incorporating the relevant information, (2) re-initiate the prioritization process and take public comment, (3) re-propose a priority designation and take public comment, and (4) re-finalize the priority designation. EPA will not revise a final designation of a chemical substance from High-Priority Substance to Low-Priority Substance, but rather see the risk evaluation process through to its conclusion.

    IV. References

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

    1. EPA. TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 Update. October 2014. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/tsca_work_plan_chemicals_2014_update-final.pdf. 2. EPA. Framework for Metals Risk Assessment. EPA 120/R-07/001. March 2007. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/metals-risk-assessment-final.pdf. 3. EPA. Science Policy Council Handbook: Risk Characterization. EPA/100/B-00/002. December 2000. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-characterization-handbook. 4. EPA. TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document. February 2012. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/work_plan_methods_document_web_final.pdf. 5. EPA. 2012 TSCA Work Plan Chemicals. June 2012. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/work_plan_chemicals_web_final.pdf. 6. EPA. Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL). Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/safer-ingredients. See also Master Criteria, September 2012, Version 2.1, available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-12/documents/dfe_master_criteria_safer_ingredients_v2_1.pdf. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not contain any information collection activities that require approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rulemaking addresses internal EPA operations and procedures and does not impose any requirements on the public.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify under section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking addresses internal EPA operations and procedures and does not impose any requirements on the public, including 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.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

    This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This rulemaking addresses internal EPA operations and procedures and does not impose any requirements on the public.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve any technical standards, and is therefore not subject to considerations under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.

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

    This action does not establish an environmental health or safety standard, and is therefore not is not subject to environmental justice considerations under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This rulemaking addresses internal EPA operations and procedures and does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 702

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Chemical substances, Hazardous substances, Health and safety, Prioritization, Screening, Toxic substances.

    Dated: December 27, 2016 Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R, is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 702—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 702 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2619.

    2. Add subpart A to read as follows: PART 702—GENERAL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES Subpart A—Procedures for Prioritization of Chemical Substances for Risk Evaluation 702.1 General Provisions. 702.3 Definitions. 702.5 Considerations for Potential Candidates for Prioritization. 702.7 Candidate Selection and Screening Review. 702.9 Initiation of Prioritization Process. 702.11 Proposed Priority Designation. 702.13 FinaL Priority Designation. 702.15 Revision of Designation. 702.17 Effect of Designation as a Low-Priority Substance. 702.19 Effect of Designation as a High-Priority Substance. Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2619.

    Subpart A—Procedures for Prioritization of Chemical Substances for Risk Evaluation
    § 702.1 General Provisions.

    (a) Purpose. This regulation establishes the risk-based screening process for designating chemical substances as a High-Priority Substance or a Low-Priority Substance for risk evaluation as required under section 6(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)).

    (b) Scope of designations. EPA will make priority designations pursuant to these procedures for a chemical substance, not for a specific condition or conditions of use of a chemical substance.

    (c) Categories of chemical substances. Nothing in this subpart shall be interpreted as a limitation on EPA's authority under 15 U.S.C. 2625(c) to take action, including the actions contemplated in this subpart, on a category of chemical substances.

    (d) Prioritization timeframe. The Agency will publish a final priority designation for a chemical substance in no fewer than 9 months and no longer than 1 year following initiation of prioritization pursuant to 40 CFR 702.9.

    (e) Metals or metal compounds. In identifying priorities for chemical substances that are metals or metal compounds, EPA will, as appropriate, refer to relevant considerations from the Framework for Metals Assessment of the Office of the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum, dated March 2007, or a successor document that addresses metals risk assessment and is peer reviewed by the Science Advisory Board.

    (f) Applicability. These regulations do not apply to any chemical substance for which a manufacturer requests a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(C) (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(C)).

    § 702.3 Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:

    Act means the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.)

    EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    High-Priority Substance means a chemical substance that EPA determines, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant by EPA.

    Low-Priority Substance means a chemical substance that EPA concludes, based on information sufficient to establish, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, does not meet the standard for a High-Priority Substance.

    § 702.5 Consideration of Potential Candidates for Prioritization.

    (a) Potential High-Priority Substance Candidates. In identifying potential candidates for High-Priority Substances, EPA will generally consider whether information available to the Agency suggests there is hazard and exposure under a condition or conditions of use, and whether a risk evaluation would be needed to determine whether there is an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

    (b) Potential Low-Priority Substance Candidates. In identifying potential candidates for Low-Priority Substances, EPA will generally consider whether information available to the EPA suggests such low hazard and/or exposure under all conditions of use that EPA is confident the chemical substances does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, including an unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant by EPA, even in the absence of a risk evaluation.

    (c) Exposure and Hazard Considerations for Potential Candidates.

    In identifying potential candidates for prioritization, EPA will generally evaluate whether or not the chemical substance meets one or more of the following exposure or hazard considerations:

    (1) Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic;

    (2) Used in children's products;

    (3) Used in consumer products;

    (4) Detected in human and/or ecological biomonitoring programs;

    (5) Potentially of concern for children's health;

    (6) High acute and chronic toxicity;

    (7) Probable or known carcinogen;

    (8) Neurotoxicity; or

    (9) Other emerging exposure and hazard concerns to human health or the environment, as determined by the Agency.

    A chemical substance that meets one or more of these criteria will generally be considered as a potential candidate for further consideration as a High-Priority Substance. A chemical substance that meets none of these criteria will generally be considered as a potential candidate for further consideration as a Low-Priority Substance.

    (d) Available Information and Resources. EPA expects it will often be difficult to timely require development of necessary chemical information, and receive, evaluate, and incorporate that information into analyses, during the prioritization and risk evaluation processes, within the statutory deadlines under the Act for prioritization and risk evaluation at 15 U.S.C. 2605 (b)(1)(C) and (b)(4)(G). Therefore, EPA will generally review and analyze the information necessary for both prioritization and risk evaluation prior to initiating the prioritization process for a chemical substance pursuant to 40 CFR 702.9. Specifically, in identifying potential candidates for prioritization, EPA expects to consider:

    (1) The availability of information and resources necessary and sufficient to support a priority designation pursuant to 40 CFR 702.11, a risk evaluation pursuant to 40 CFR 702, subpart B, or other such action as determined by the Administrator; and

    (2) The ability of EPA to timely develop or require development of information necessary and sufficient to support a priority designation pursuant to 40 CFR 702.11; a risk evaluation pursuant to 40 CFR 702, subpart B; or other such action as determined by the Agency.

    (e) Insufficient Information. In the absence of sufficient information to support a priority designation pursuant to 40 CFR 702.11, a risk evaluation pursuant to 40 CFR 702, subpart B, or other such action as determined by the Agency, EPA may use its authorities under the Act, and other information gathering authorities, to gather or require the generation of the needed information on a chemical substance before initiating the prioritization process for that chemical substance.

    § 702.7 Candidate Selection and Screening Review.

    (a) Preferences and TSCA Work Plan. In selecting a candidate for prioritization as a High-Priority Substance, EPA will:

    (1) Give preference to:

    (A) Chemical substances that are listed in the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments as having a persistence and bioaccumulation score of 3, and

    (B) Chemical substances that are listed in the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that are known human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity; and

    (2) Identify a sufficient number of candidates from the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments to ensure that, at any given time, at least 50 percent of risk evaluations being conducted by EPA are drawn from that list until all substances on the list have been designated as either a High-Priority Substance or Low-Priority Substance pursuant to 40 CFR 702.13.

    (b) General Objective. In selecting candidates for a High-Priority Substance designation, it is EPA's general objective to select those chemical substances with the greatest hazard and exposure potential first, considering available information on the relative hazard and exposure of potential candidates. EPA may also consider the relative hazard and exposure of a potential candidate's substitutes. EPA is not required to select candidates or initiate prioritization pursuant to 40 CFR 702.9 in any ranked or hierarchical order.

    (c) Screening Review. Following selection of a candidate chemical substance, EPA will generally use available information to screen the candidate chemical substance against the following criteria and considerations:

    (1) The chemical substance's hazard and exposure potential;

    (2) The chemical substance's persistence and bioaccumulation;

    (3) Potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations;

    (4) Storage of the chemical substance near significant sources of drinking water;

    (5) The chemical substance's conditions of use or significant changes in conditions of use;

    (6) The chemical substance's production volume or significant changes in production volume; and

    (7) Any other risk-based criteria relevant to the designation of the chemical substance's priority, in EPA's discretion.

    (d) Information sources. In conducting the screening review in paragraph (c) of this section, EPA expects to consider sources of information relevant to the listed criteria, including, as appropriate, sources for hazard and exposure data listed in Appendices A and B of the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document (February 2012).

    (e) The purpose of the preferences and criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and the screening review in paragraph (c) of this section are to inform EPA's decision whether or not to initiate the prioritization process pursuant to 40 CFR 702.9, and the proposed designation of the chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substance or a Low-Priority Substance pursuant to 40 CFR 702.11.

    (f) If, after the screening review in paragraph (c) of this section, EPA believes it will not have sufficient information to support a proposed priority designation pursuant to 40 CFR 702.11, a risk evaluation pursuant to 40 CFR 702, subpart B, or other such action as determined by the Agency, EPA is likely to use its authorities under the Act, and other information gathering authorities, to generate the needed information before initiating prioritization pursuant to 40 CFR 702.9.

    § 702.9 Initiation of Prioritization Process.

    (a) EPA generally expects to initiate the prioritization process for a chemical substance only when it believes that all or most of the information necessary to prioritize and perform a risk evaluation on the substance already exists.

    (b) EPA will initiate prioritization by publishing a notice in the Federal Register identifying a chemical substance for prioritization and the results of the screening review conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 702.7(c).

    (c) The prioritization timeframe in 40 CFR 702.1(d) begins upon EPA's publication of the notice described in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (d) The results of the screening review published pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section will identify, in a form and manner that EPA deems appropriate, the information analysis and basis used in conducting the screening process. Subject to 15 U.S.C. 2613, copies of the information will also be placed in a public docket established for each chemical substance.

    (e) Publication of a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section will initiate a period of 90 days during which interested persons may submit relevant information on that chemical substance. Relevant information might include, but is not limited to, any information regarding the results of the screening review conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 702.7(c), and any additional information on the chemical substance that pertains to the criteria and considerations at 40 CFR 702.7(c).

    (f) EPA may, in its discretion, extend the public comment period in paragraph (b) of this section for up to three months in order to receive or evaluate information submitted under 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2)(B). The length of the extension will be based upon EPA's assessment of the time necessary for EPA to receive and/or evaluate information submitted under 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2)(B).

    § 702.11 Proposed Priority Designation.

    (a) Based on the results of the screening review in 40 CFR 702.7(c), relevant information received from the public as described in 40 CFR 702.9(e), and other information as appropriate and in EPA's discretion, EPA will propose to designate the chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substance or Low-Priority Substance.

    (b) EPA will not consider costs or other non-risk factors in making a proposed priority designation.

    (c) If information available to EPA remains insufficient to enable the proposed designation of the chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance, including after any extension of the initial public comment period pursuant to 40 CFR 702.9(f), EPA will propose to designate the chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance.

    (d) EPA may propose to designate a chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance based on the proposed conclusion that the chemical substance satisfies the definition of High-Priority Substance in 40 CFR 702.3 under any one or more uses that the Agency determines constitute conditions of use as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2602. EPA will propose to designate a chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance based only on the proposed conclusion that the chemical substance satisfies the definition of Low-Priority Substance in 40 CFR 702.3 under all uses that the Agency determines constitute conditions of use as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2602.

    (e) EPA will publish the proposed designation in the Federal Register, along with an identification of the information, analysis and basis used to support a proposed designation, in a form and manner that EPA deems appropriate, and provide a comment period of 90 days, during which time the public may submit comment on EPA's proposed designation. EPA will open a docket to facilitate receipt of public comment.

    (f) For chemical substances that EPA proposes to designate as Low-Priority Substances, EPA will specify in the notice published pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section that all comments that could be raised on the issues in the proposed designation must be presented during this comment period. Any issues not raised at this time will be considered to have been waived, and may not form the basis for an objection or challenge in any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding.

    § 702.13 Final Priority Designation.

    (a) After considering any additional information collected from the proposed designation process in 40 CFR 702.11, as appropriate, EPA will finalize its designation of a chemical substance as either a High-Priority Substance or a Low-Priority Substance.

    (b) EPA will not consider costs or other non-risk factors in making a final priority designation.

    (c) EPA will publish each final priority designation in the Federal Register.

    (d) EPA will finalize a designation for at least one High-Priority Substance for each risk evaluation it completes, other than a risk evaluation that was requested by a manufacturer pursuant to 40 CFR 702, subpart B. The obligation in 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(3)(C) will be satisfied by the designation of at least one High-Priority Substance where such designation specifies the risk evaluation that the designation corresponds to, and where the designation occurs within a reasonable time before or after the completion of the risk evaluation.

    (e) If information available to EPA remains insufficient to enable the final designation of the chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance, EPA will finalize the designation of the chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance.

    § 702.15 Revision of Designation.

    EPA may revise a final designation of chemical substance from Low-Priority to High-Priority Substance at any time based on information available to the Agency. To revise such a designation, EPA will re-screen the chemical substance pursuant to 40 CFR 702.7(c), re-initiate the prioritization process on that chemical substance in accordance with 40 CFR 702.9, propose a priority designation pursuant to 40 CFR 702.11, and finalize the priority designation pursuant to 40 CFR 702.13. EPA will not revise a final designation of a chemical substance from a High-Priority Substance designation to Low-Priority.

    § 702.17 Effect of Designation as a Low-Priority Substance.

    Designation of a chemical substance as a Low-Priority Substance under 40 CFR 702.3 means that a risk evaluation of the chemical substance is not warranted at the time, but does not preclude EPA from later revising the designation pursuant to 40 CFR 702.15, if warranted.

    § 702.19 Effect of Designation as a High-Priority Substance.

    Final designation of a chemical substance as a High-Priority Substance under 40 CFR 702.13 initiates a risk evaluation pursuant to 40 CFR 702, subpart B. Designation as a High-Priority Substance is not a final agency action and is not subject to judicial review.

    [FR Doc. 2017-00051 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 02-278; Report No. 3066] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding, Sarah E. Ducich and Mark W. Brennan on behalf of Navient Corp., Joseph Popevis and Rich Benenson on behalf of Nelnet Servicing LLC, Rebecca Emily Rapp on behalf of Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation, Jason L. Swartley on behalf of Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, and Winfield P. Crigler on behalf of Student Loan Servicing Alliance.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before February 1, 2017. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before February 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristi Thornton, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2467 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3066, released January 6, 2017. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1217190700960/document/1217190700960fd71. The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, FCC 16-99, published at 81 FR 80594, November 16, 2016, in CG Docket No. 02-278. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00848 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 10 Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Announcement of Application Deadlines and Requirements for Section 313A Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Electrification or Telephone Purposes Loan Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).

    SUMMARY:

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces the application window, requirements and funding for loans that may become available for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 under the Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Electrification or Telephone Purposes Program (the 313A Program) authorized under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and related terms. Under the 313A Program, the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) will make loans to the selected applicant(s) and RUS will guarantee the applicant(s)'s repayment of the loans to FFB. Selected applicants may use the proceeds of loan funds made available under the 313A Program to make loans to borrowers for electrification or telecommunications purposes, or to refinance bonds or notes previously issued by applicants for such purposes. The proceeds of the guaranteed bonds and notes are not to be used by applicants to directly or indirectly fund projects for the generation of electricity.

    This notice is based on loan levels contemplated by the FY 17 Continuing Resolution and on information available to the agency at the time of this notice. The final amount of funding made available under this notice could be affected by subsequent Congressional action or subsidy rate calculations. Last year, the RUS obligated $750 million in loan funds for this program. It is necessary to publish this notice at this time to ensure that applicants have sufficient time to prepare applications and to ensure that the agency has sufficient time and resources to evaluate applications.

    DATES:

    Completed applications must be received by RUS no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on April 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applicants are required to submit one original and two copies of their loan applications to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Electric Program, ATTN: Amy McWilliams, Management Analyst, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 0226-S, Washington, DC 20250-1568.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact Amy McWilliams, Management Analyst, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 0226-S, Washington, DC 20250-1568. Telephone: (202) 205-8663; or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview

    Federal Agency: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Electrification or Telephone Purposes for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017.

    Announcement Type: Guarantees for Bonds and Notes.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.850

    Due Date for Applications: Applications must be received by RUS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on April 28, 2017.

    Items in Supplementary Information I. Funding Opportunity Description II. Award Information III. Eligibility Information IV. Fiscal Year 2017 Application and Submission Information V. Application Review Information VI. Issuance of the Guarantee VII. Guarantee Agreement VIII. Reporting Requirements IX. Award Administration Information X. National Environmental Policy Act Certification XI. Other Information and Requirements XII. Agency Contacts: Web site, Phone, Fax, Email, Contact Name XIII. Non-Discrimination Statement: USDA Non-Discrimination Statement, How To File a Complaint, Persons With Disabilities I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Purpose of the 313A Program

    The purpose of the 313A Program is to make guaranteed loans to selected applicants (each referred to as “Guaranteed Lender” in this NOSA and in the Program Regulations) that are to be used (i) to make loans for electrification or telecommunications purposes eligible for assistance under the RE Act (defined herein) and regulations for the 313A Program located at 7 CFR part 1720 (also referred to as the “Program Regulations” in this NOSA), or (ii) to refinance bonds or notes previously issued by the Guaranteed Lender for such purposes. The proceeds of the guaranteed bonds and notes are not to be used by the Guaranteed Lender to directly or indirectly fund projects for the generation of electricity.

    B. Statutory Authority

    The 313A Program is authorized by Section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 940c-1) (the RE Act) and is implemented by regulations located at 7 CFR part 1720. The Administrator of RUS (the Administrator) has been delegated responsibility for administering the 313A Program.

    C. Definition of Terms

    The definitions applicable to this NOSA are published at 7 CFR 1720.3.

    D. Application Awards

    RUS will review and evaluate applications received in response to this NOSA based on the regulations at 7 CFR 1720.7, and as provided in this NOSA.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Awards: Guaranteed Loans.

    Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2017.

    Award Amounts: RUS anticipates making multiple approvals under this NOSA. The number, amount and terms of awards under this NOSA will depend, in part, on the number of eligible applications and the amount of funds requested. In determining whether or not to make an award, the RUS will take overall program policy objectives into account.

    Application Date: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION herein.

    Award Date: Awards will be made on or before September 29, 2017.

    Preferred Schedule of Loan Repayment: Amortization Method (level debt service).

    III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants

    1. To be eligible to participate in the 313A Program, a Guaranteed Lender must be:

    a. A bank or other lending institution organized as a private, not-for-profit cooperative association, or otherwise organized on a non-profit basis; and

    b. Able to demonstrate to the Administrator that it possesses the appropriate expertise, experience, and qualifications to make loans for electrification or telephone purposes.

    2. To be eligible to receive a guarantee, a Guaranteed Lender's bond must meet the following criteria:

    a. The Guaranteed Lender must furnish the Administrator with a certified list of the principal balances of eligible loans outstanding and certify that such aggregate balance is at least equal to the sum of the proposed principal amount of guaranteed bonds to be issued, including any previously issued guaranteed bonds outstanding;

    b. The guaranteed bonds to be issued by the Guaranteed Lender would receive an underlying investment grade rating from a Rating Agency, without regard to the guarantee; and

    3. A lending institution's status as an eligible applicant does not assure that the Administrator will issue the guarantee sought in the amount or under the terms requested, or otherwise preclude the Administrator from declining to issue a guarantee.

    B. Other Eligibility Requirements

    Applications will only be accepted from lenders that serve rural areas defined in 7 CFR 1710.2(a) as (i) Any area of the United States, its territories and insular possessions (including any area within the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau) other than a city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; and (ii) Any area within a service area of a borrower for which a borrower has an outstanding loan as of June 18, 2008, made under titles I through V of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901-950bb). For initial loans to a borrower made after June 18, 2008, the “rural” character of an area is determined at the time of the initial loan to furnish or improve service in the area.

    IV. Fiscal Year 2017 Application and Submission Information A. Applications

    All applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with this NOSA and 7 CFR 1720.6 (Application Process). To ensure the proper preparation of applications, applicants should carefully read this NOSA and 7 CFR part 1720 (available online at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9295e45c9a0f6a857d800fbec5dde2fb&mc=true&node=pt7.11.1720&rgn=div5.

    B. Content and Form of Submission

    In addition to the required application specified in 7 CFR 1720.6, all applicants must submit the following additional required documents and materials:

    1. Form AD-1047, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters Primary Covered Transactions. This form contains certain certifications relating to debarment and suspension, convictions, criminal charges, and the termination of public transactions (See 2 CFR part 417, and 7 CFR 1710.123). This form is available at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/policy-directives-records-forms/forms-management/approved-computer-generated-forms;

    2. Restrictions on Lobbying. Applicants must comply with the requirements with respect to restrictions on lobbying activities. (See 2 CFR part 418, and 7 CFR 1710.125). This form is available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/publications/regulations-guidelines/electric-sample-documents;

    3. Uniform Relocation Act assurance statement. Applicants must comply with 49 CFR part 24, which implements the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended. (See 7 CFR 1710.124). This form is available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/publications/regulations-guidelines/electric-sample-documents;

    4. Federal debt delinquency requirements. This report indicates whether or not the applicants are delinquent on any Federal debt (See 7 CFR 1710.126 and 7 CFR 1710.501(a)(13)). This form is available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/publications/regulations-guidelines/electric-sample-documents;

    5. RUS Form 266, Compliance Assurance. Applicants must submit a non-discrimination assurance commitment to comply with certain regulations on non-discrimination in program services and benefits and on equal employment opportunity as set forth in 7 CFR parts 15 and 15b and 45 CFR part 90. This form is available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/publications/regulations-guidelines/forms-publications;

    6. Articles of incorporation and bylaws: See 7 CFR 1710.501(a)(14). These are required if either document has been amended since the last loan application was submitted to RUS, or if this is the applicant's first application for a loan under the RE Act; and

    7. Form AD 3030, Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquency Status for Corporation Applications. Applicants are required to complete this form if they are a corporation. This form is available at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/policy-directives-records-forms/forms-management/approved-computer-generated-forms.

    C. Supplemental Documents for Submission

    1. Cash flow projections and assumptions: Each applicant must include five-year pro-forma cash flow projections or business plans and clearly state the assumptions that underlie the projections, demonstrating that there is reasonable assurance that the applicant will be able to repay the guaranteed loan in accordance with its terms (See 7 CFR 1720.6(4)).

    2. Pending litigation statement: A statement from the applicant's counsel listing any pending litigation, including levels of related insurance coverage and the potential effect on the applicant.

    V. Application Review Information A. Application Evaluation

    1. Administrator Review. Each application will be reviewed by the Administrator to determine whether it is eligible under 7 CFR 1720.5, the information required under 7 CFR 1720.6 is complete, and the proposed guaranteed bond complies with applicable statutes and regulations. The Administrator can at any time reject an application that fails to meet these requirements.

    a. Applications will be subject to a substantive review, on a competitive basis, by the Administrator based upon the evaluation factors listed in 7 CFR 1720.7(b).

    2. Decisions by the Administrator. The Administrator will approve or deny applications in a timely manner as such applications are received; provided, however, that in order to facilitate competitive evaluation of applications, the Administrator may from time to time defer a decision until more than one application is pending. The Administrator may limit the number of guarantees made to a maximum of five per year, to ensure a sufficient examination is conducted of applicant requests. RUS will notify the applicant in writing of the Administrator's approval or denial of an application. Approvals for guarantees will be conditioned upon compliance with 7 CFR 1720.4 and 7 CFR 1720.6. The Administrator reserves the discretion to approve an application for an amount less than that requested.

    B. Independent Assessment

    Before a guarantee decision is made by the Administrator, the Administrator shall request that FFB review the rating agency determination required by 7 CFR 1720.5(b)(2) as to whether the bond or note to be issued would be below investment grade without regard to the guarantee.

    VI. Issuance of the Guarantee

    The requirements under this section must be met by the applicant prior to the endorsement of a guarantee by the Administrator (See 7 CFR 1720.8).

    VII. Guarantee Agreement

    Each Guaranteed Lender will be required to enter into a Guarantee Agreement with RUS that contains the provisions described in 7 CFR 1720.8 (Issuance of the Guarantee), 7 CFR 1720.9 (Guarantee Agreement), and 7 CFR 1720.12 (Reporting Requirements). The Guarantee Agreement will also obligate the Guaranteed Lender to pay, on a semi-annual basis, a guarantee fee equal to 15 basis points (0.15 percent) of the outstanding principal amount of the guaranteed loan (See 7 CFR 1720.10).

    VIII. Reporting Requirements

    Guaranteed Lenders are required to comply with the financial reporting requirements and pledged collateral review and certification requirements set forth in 7 CFR 1720.12.

    IX. Award Administration Information Award Notices

    RUS will send a commitment letter to an applicant once the loan is approved. Applicants must accept and commit to all terms and conditions of the loan which are requested by RUS and FFB as follows:

    1. Compliance conditions. In addition to the standard conditions placed on the section 313A Program or conditions requested by the Agency to ensure loan security and statutory compliance, applicants must comply with the following conditions:

    a. Each Guaranteed Lender selected under the 313A Program will be required to post collateral for the benefit of RUS in an amount equal to the aggregate amount of loan advances made to the Guaranteed Lender under the 313A Program.

    b. The pledged collateral shall consist of outstanding notes or bonds payable to the Guaranteed Lender (the Eligible Securities) and shall be placed on deposit with a collateral agent for the benefit of RUS. To be deemed Eligible Securities that can be pledged as collateral, the notes or bonds to be pledged (i) cannot be classified as non-performing, impaired, or restructured under generally accepted accounting principles, (ii) cannot be comprised of more than 30% of bonds or notes from generation and transmission borrowers or (iii) cannot have more than 5% of notes and bonds be from any one particular borrower.

    c. The Guaranteed Lender will be required to place a lien on the pledged collateral in favor of RUS (as secured party) at the time that the pledged collateral is deposited with the collateral agent. RUS will have the right, in its sole discretion, within 14 business days to reject and require the substitution of any Pledged Collateral that the Guaranteed Lender deposits as collateral with the collateral agent. Prior to receiving any advances under the 313A Program, the Guaranteed Lender will be required to enter into a pledge agreement, satisfactory to RUS, with a banking institution serving as collateral agent.

    d. The Guaranteed Lender will be required to maintain pledged collateral at a level that is sufficient to ensure that, upon the occurrence of an event of default, resources will be available to cover (i) principal, interest, fees and (ii) reasonable expenses incurred by RUS as a result of a default or incurred pursuant to RUS's obligation to make related payments to FFB under the RUS Guarantee on all guarantees issued by RUS to FFB for the benefit of the Guaranteed Lender under Section 313A of the RE Act. The Guaranteed Lender will also be required to agree that the pledged collateral can be used for such purposes.

    e. The Guaranteed Lender will be required to agree to not to take any action that would have the effect of reducing the value of the Pledged Collateral below the level described above.

    f. Applicants must certify to the RUS, the portion of their Eligible Loan portfolio that is:

    (1) Refinanced RUS debt;

    (2) Debt of borrowers for whom both RUS and the applicants have outstanding loans; and

    (3) Debt of borrowers for whom both RUS and the applicant have outstanding concurrent loans pursuant to Section 307 of the RE Act, and the amount of Eligible Loans.

    2. Compliance with Federal Laws. Applicants must comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations.

    a. This obligation is subject to the provisions contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, Division A, Title VII, Sections 745 and 746, as amended and/or subsequently enacted for USDA agencies and offices regarding corporate felony convictions and corporate federal tax delinquencies.

    b. An authorized official within your organization must execute, date, and return the loan commitment letter and the Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants (Form AD-3031) to RUS by September 28, 2017; otherwise, the commitment will be void. This form is available at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/policy-directives-records-forms/forms-management/approved-computer-generated-forms.

    c. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Filing. The Borrower must provide RUS with evidence that the Borrower has filed the UCC financing statement required pursuant to Section 2.05(i) of the Pledge Agreement. Upon filing of the appropriate UCC financing statement, the Guaranteed Lender will provide RUS with a perfection opinion by outside counsel, satisfactory to RUS, which demonstrates that RUS's security interest in the Pledged Collateral under the Pledge Agreement is perfected.

    d. Additional conditions may be instituted for future obligations.

    X. National Environmental Policy Act Certification

    For any proceeds to be used to refinance bonds and notes previously issued by the Guaranteed Lender for the RE Act purposes that are not obligated with specific projects, RUS has determined that these financial actions will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. However, for any new projects funded under the 313A Program, applicants must consult with RUS and comply with the Agency regulations at 7 CFR part 1970.

    XI. Other Information and Requirements

    Applications must contain all of the required elements of this NOSA and all standard requirements as required by 7 CFR part 1720. Additional supporting data or documents may be required by RUS depending on the individual application or financial conditions. All applicants must comply with all Federal Laws and Regulations.

    XII. Agency Contacts

    A. Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/electric-programs

    B. Phone: (202) 205-8663.

    C. Fax: (844) 749-0736.

    D. Email: [email protected]

    E. Main point of contact: Amy McWilliams, Management Analyst, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 0226-S, Washington, DC 20250-1568.

    XIII. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027. This form is available at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/policy-directives-records-forms/forms-management/approved-computer-generated-forms and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email: [email protected]

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 940c-1.

    Dated: December 20, 2016. Joshua Cohen, Deputy Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00831 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Delaware Advisory Committee; Correction AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice; revision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the Federal Register of September 15, 2016, concerning a meeting of the Delaware Advisory Committee. The meeting time for the January 18, 2017 is changed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy Davis, (202) 376-7533.

    Revision

    In the Federal Register of Delaware, in FR Doc. 2016-22196, on page 63468, revise the first paragraph to read:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that the time of the January 18, 2017 planning meeting of the Delaware State Advisory Committee to the Commission is changed to 10:00 a.m. EST.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00768 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-5-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone 124—Gramercy, Louisiana, Application for Reorganization, (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port of South Louisiana, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 124, requesting authority to reorganize the zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 10, 2017.

    FTZ 124 was approved by the FTZ Board on December 20, 1985 (Board Order 319, 50 FR 53351, December 31, 1985), reorganized under the ASF on January 31, 2012 (Board Order 1814, 77 FR 6059, February 7, 2012), and its service area was expanded on July 16, 2013 (Board Order 1908, 78 FR 44094-44095, July 23, 2013). The zone currently has a service area that includes St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, St. James, Lafourche, St. Mary and Tangipahoa Parishes, Louisiana.

    The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Plaquemines and Assumption Parishes, Louisiana, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Gramercy Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 20, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 3, 2017.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00870 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-04-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 277—Western Maricopa County, Arizona Notification of Proposed Production Activity; IRIS USA, Inc. (Plastic Household Storage/Organizational Containers), Surprise, Arizona

    IRIS USA, Inc. (IRIS) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Surprise, Arizona, within FTZ 277. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 23, 2016.

    IRIS has a pending production notification to produce plastic household storage/organizational containers and pet carriers/pens within Site 12 of FTZ 277 (B-68-2016, 81 FR 71045-71046, October 14, 2016). The current request would add a foreign-status component (steel wire dividers) to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status component described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt IRIS from customs duty payments on the foreign-status component used in export production. On its domestic sales, IRIS would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to finished products—plastic household storage/organizational containers and pet carriers/pens (duty rates range from free to 5.3%)—authorized by the FTZ Board for the foreign-status steel wire dividers (duty rate, 3.4%). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 27, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: January 9, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00867 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Title: Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0132.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,230.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 to 600 hours.

    Needs and Uses: This collection of information supports enforcement of the Antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by providing a method for industry to voluntarily self-disclose Antiboycott violations.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00798 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Relating To Berty Tyloo

    In the Matter of: Berty Tyloo with last known addresses of: Rue du Pont Nerf 2, Morges, Switzerland and Rue du Centre, 2, 1131 Tolochenaz, Morges, Switzerland, Respondent

    The Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”), has notified Berty Tyloo, of Morges, Switzerland (“Tyloo”), of its intention to initiate an administrative proceeding against Tyloo pursuant to Section 766.3 of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations”),1 and Section 13(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (the “Act”),2 through the issuance of a Proposed Charging Letter to Tyloo that alleges that Tyloo committed one violation of the Regulations. Specifically, the charge is:

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The charged violation occurred in 2013. The Regulations governing the violation at issue are found in the 2013 version of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774). The 2016 Regulations set forth the procedures that apply to this matter.

    2 50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13,222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    Charge 1 15 CFR 764.2(g): Misrepresentation and Concealment of Facts in the Course of an Investigation

    On or about June 14, 2013, Tyloo made false or misleading statements to BIS in the course of an investigation. Specifically, Tyloo was interviewed by two BIS supervisory special agents on or about June 14, 2013, in relation to an investigation of unlicensed exports and reexports to Syria of items subject to the Regulations and manufactured by Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Agilent”), a U.S. company. As early as 2001, Tyloo was the area sales manager or distribution channel manager for the Middle East and Africa for Agilent products for European subsidiaries or affiliates of Agilent, including with regard to the sale and distribution of Agilent products to Syria through a Lebanese distributor or reseller, Technoline SAL (“Technoline”).3 In addition, upon information and belief, Tyloo had an ownership interest in Technoline from at least March 2003 until at least the spring of 2008, as demonstrated, inter alia, by correspondence between Tyloo and Technoline management or ownership during this time period in which Tyloo sought information regarding his “share” and “assets” and “profit” in or from Technoline.

    3 From in or about November 1999, until in or about May 2011, Tyloo was employed first by Agilent Technologies Europe B.V. and then Agilent Technologies International SARL. Tyloo was based in Switzerland. Agilent was spun off in 1999 from Hewlett-Packard (“HP”). Tyloo was employed by HP from in or about April 1990, until in or about November 1999, at which time he was transferred to Agilent, within the international distributor operation at Agilent Technologies Europe B.V.

    During the June 2013 interview, Tyloo stated that he had “no idea” how Agilent products had ended up in Syria and that, as far as he knew, all such products had stayed in Lebanon. Similarly, when asked if Technoline had ever shipped U.S.-origin items to Syria, Tyloo stated, “No, not to my knowledge.” At the time he made these statements, Tyloo knew they were false or misleading and that, in fact, Technoline had sold and distributed Agilent items to Syria beginning in at least 2004. Between at least November 2004 and December 2010, Technoline served as a distributor/reseller of Agilent products to several countries in the Middle East region pursuant to an International Designated Reseller Program Agreement (“reseller agreement”) entered into annually with Agilent's Swiss affiliates.4 Each of these reseller agreements explicitly stated that Technoline's territory included Syria. Moreover, on or about January 1, 2010, Tyloo electronically signed the 2010 version of the reseller agreement on Agilent Switzerland's behalf. Nonetheless, during the June 2013 interview, Tyloo falsely or misleadingly omitted any mention of Syria in describing the countries in Technoline's territory under the reseller agreements.

    4 Between on or about November 1, 2004, and on or about December 31, 2007, Technoline acted as a distributor/reseller of Agilent products through reseller agreements it executed with Agilent Technologies Europe B.V. Technoline signed the 2008-2010 versions of the reseller agreement with Agilent Technologies International SARL. See also note 3, supra.

    Tyloo's role as the area sales manager or distribution channel manager for Agilent products in the Middle East provided Tyloo access to information about Technoline's sale and distribution of Agilent products to Syria. Upon information and belief, his ownership stake in Technoline also provided him with access to such information. In addition, consistent with the longstanding reseller arrangement described above, on various occasions Tyloo acknowledged Technoline's Syria business involving Agilent products. For example, in a November 14, 2004 message captioned “Agilent sales in Technoline,” Tyloo informed two Technoline officials that he “kept on Syria” in a “contract” for Fiscal Year 2005 between Technoline and Agilent, noting further that even if the Agilent contract administrator removed the reference, “THIS SHOULD NOT STOP US SELLING THERE (capitalization in the original).” 5 On or about March 31, 2009, Tyloo thanked Technoline's area sales manager for his “continuous support and all the orders that you [and] your team delivers every month,” citing “your tough territories like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq . . . .” Additionally, on or about November 23, 2009, Technoline's area sales manager provided Tyloo with business plans for several countries in the Middle East, including Syria, and noted in the accompanying message that the “main focus” for 2010 would include “Pharma[ceuticals] in Syria” and “Mid Range products in Academia (Syria and Iraq).” (Parenthetical in original). Tyloo requested these business plans in preparation for his upcoming performance evaluations at Agilent Switzerland. Similarly, in December 2010, Tyloo gave a presentation at a meeting in Spain involving multiple Agilent European affiliates, in which he highlighted sales of Agilent products to Syria.

    5 In May 2004, six months prior to Tyloo's November 14, 2004 message, the U.S. Government implemented restrictions on the export and reexport to Syria of U.S.-origin items (with the exception of food and certain medicines). General Order No. 2 of May 14, 2004, Supp. No. 1 to part 736 to the Regulations, was issued pursuant to the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, enacted on December 12, 2003, and Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004. In December 2011, the controls on exports and reexports to Syria were moved from General Order No. 2 to Section 746.9 of the Regulations. The licensing requirements continued unchanged. See 76 FR 77,115 (Dec. 12, 2011). During the June 2013 interview, Tyloo admitted that he had received regular training on U.S. export controls from Agilent's legal department during his tenure with the Agilent subsidiaries or affiliates, including regarding embargoed and sanctioned destinations, and that he knew that U.S.-origin items could not be shipped to, inter alia, Syria. Tyloo also stated that he had received annual export controls training while he was employed by HP.

    As alleged herein, Tyloo made false or misleading statements to BIS in the course of an investigation, in violation of Section 764.2(g) of the Regulations. Tyloo did so even though he acknowledged during the June 2013 interview that providing false or misleading information to the BIS agents was unlawful.

    Whereas, BIS and Tyloo have entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 766.18(a) of the Regulations, whereby they agreed to settle this matter in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; and

    Whereas, I have approved of the terms of such Settlement Agreement; it is therefore ordered:

    First, for a period of three (3) years from the date of this Order, Berty Tyloo, with last known addresses of Rue du Pont Nerf 2, Morges, Switzerland, and Rue du Centre, 2, 1131 Tolochenaz, Morges, Switzerland, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, representatives, agents, or employees (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to the Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

    Fourth, Tyloo shall not take any action or make or permit to be made any public statement, directly or indirectly, denying the allegations in the Proposed Charging Letter or this Order. The foregoing does not affect Tyloo's testimonial obligations in any proceeding; nor does it affect his right to take legal or factual positions in civil litigation or other civil proceedings in which the U.S. Department of Commerce is not a party.

    Fifth, the Proposed Charging Letter, the Settlement Agreement, and this Order shall be made available to the public.

    Sixth, this Order shall be served on Tyloo, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this matter, is effective immediately.

    Issued this 10th day of January, 2017. Richard R. Majauskas, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00893 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-601] Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission of New Shipper Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On July 14, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the preliminary results of the 28th administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015. After analyzing the comments received, we made no changes to the margin calculations in the administrative review and we are rescinding the new shipper review (NSR). The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”

    DATES:

    Effective January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse or Manuel Rey, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 or (202) 482-5518, respectively.

    Background

    These final results of administrative review cover four exporters of the subject merchandise, Changshan Peer Bearing Co. Ltd. (CPZ/SKF), Haining Nice Flourish Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (Nice Flourish), Roci International (HK) Limited (Roci), and Yantai CMC Bearing Co., Ltd. (Yantai CMC). The Department selected CPZ/SKF and Yantai CMC as mandatory respondents for individual examination; however, we subsequently found that Yantai CMC does not qualify for a separate rate. The NSR covers Shandong Bolong Bearing Co., Ltd. (Bolong).

    On July 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 1 In the Preliminary Results, we found that Bolong's sale to the United States is not bona fide, as required by section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and, therefore, we indicated that we intended to rescind the NSR.

    1See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Rescission of New Shipper Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 45455 (July 14, 2016) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    In August 2016, we received case briefs from the Timken Company (the petitioner), Bolong and Yantai CMC. In September 2016, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner and CPZ/SKF. In October 2016, the Department held a public hearing in the administrative review at the request of the petitioner.

    In November 2016, the Department extended the deadline for the final results by 60 days to January 10, 2017.2

    2See Memorandum from Manuel Rey, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office II, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, entitled, “Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative, Changed Circumstances, and New Shipper Reviews,” dated November 1, 2016.

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

    Scope of the Order  3

    3See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China, 52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987) (Order).

    The merchandise covered by the order includes tapered roller bearings and parts thereof. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.4

    4 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (2014-2015): Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China,” from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervialing Duty Operations, dated concurrently with, and adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memo).

    Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Results, we found that evidence provided by CPZ/SKF, Nice Flourish, and Roci supported finding an absence of both de jure and de facto government control, and, therefore, we preliminarily granted a separate rate to each of these companies.5 We received no information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsidering these determinations. Therefore, for the final results, we continue to find that CPZ/SKF, Nice Flourish, and Roci are eligible for separate rates.

    5Id., at 2-5.

    With respect to Yantai CMC, however, we determined in the Preliminary Results that this company failed to demonstrate an absence of de facto government control, and, thus, the Department did not grant Yantai CMC a separate rate. For these final results, we continue to find, based on record evidence, that Yantai CMC failed to demonstrate an absence of de facto government control. Accordingly, we are not granting Yantai CMC a separate rate. For further discussion of this issue, see Comments 2 through 5 of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Weighted-Average Dumping Margin for the Non-Examined, Separate-Rate Companies

    In accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Albemarle Corp. v. United States, we are applying to the exporters subject to this review that are determined to be eligible for a separate rate, but are not selected as individually examined respondents, the rate calculated for the mandatory respondent, CPZ/SKF, which is de minimis. 6

    6See, Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review and new shipper review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and 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 it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made no changes in the margin calculation for CPZ/SKF.

    Rescission of New Shipper Review

    For the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, the Department continues to find that Bolong's sale is non-bona fide. Because the non-bona fide sale was the only reported sale of subject merchandise during the POR, and thus there are no reviewable transactions, the Department is rescinding the NSR.

    Period of Review

    The POR is June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.

    Final Results of the Administrative Review

    Because Yantai CMC did not demonstrate that it is entitled to a separate rate, the Department finds Yantai CMC to be part of the PRC-wide entity. No party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity and the entity's rate is not subject to change.7 The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity is 92.84 percent.

    7See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity (NME) in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65970 (November 4, 2013).

    Additionally, we are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015:

    Exporters Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd 0.00 Haining Nice Flourish Auto Parts Co., Ltd * 0.00 Roci International (HK) Limited * 0.00 * This company demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate in this administrative review.
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Pursuant to the Final Modification for Reviews, 8 because the above-listed respondents' weighted-average dumping margins are zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.9

    8See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    9Id., 77 FR at 8102.

    For Yantai CMC, because the Department determined that this company did not qualify for a separate rate, we will instruct CBP to assess dumping duties on the company's entries of subject merchandise at the rate of 92.84 percent.

    For Bolong, because the Department rescinded the NSR, the Department will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from Bolong. Bolong continues to be part of the PRC-wide entity and, therefore, we also will instruct CBP to assess dumping duties on the company's entries of subject merchandise at the rate of 92.84 percent.

    For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that currently have separate a rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the exporter received that separate rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, 92.84 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter.

    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notifications to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only 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 of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Issues a. Surrogate Value for Truck Freight b. The Department Should Grant Yantai CMC a Separate Rate c. The Denial of Separate Rate Status for Yantai CMC Is Not Supported by Record Evidence d. The Rate Assigned to Yantai CMC e. The Department's Separate Rates Test and the Rate Assigned to Yantai CMC Are Inconsistent With the WTO Agreements f. The Department Should Continue the NSR and Calculate a Margin for the Final 5. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-00827 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-816] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained in full the Department of Commerce's (the Department) second remand results pertaining to the fifteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel flat products from the Republic of Korea covering the period of August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review, and that the Department is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union), Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO), and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu).

    DATES:

    Effective December 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3692.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued the Final Results. 1 Four parties contested the Department's findings in the Final Results. Three of the four plaintiffs, Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu, are Korean producers/exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel flat products (CORE). Union and HYSCO were mandatory respondents in the fifteenth administrative review; Dongbu was an unexamined respondent subject to the non-selected rate. The remaining plaintiff, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), was a petitioner in the fifteenth administrative review.

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Fifteenth Administrative Review, 75 FR 13490 (March 22, 2010) (Final Results) and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Final Decision Memorandum).

    In the Final Results, the Department assigned weighted-average dumping margins of 14.01 percent to Union and 3.29 percent to HYSCO.2 As an unexamined respondent, Dongbu received the margin of 8.65 percent that the Department assigned to all unexamined respondents, which the Department calculated as a simple average of the non-de-minimis margins of the examined respondents.3

    2See Final Results, 75 FR at 13491.

    3Id.

    On May 25, 2012, the CIT issued its opinion in Union Steel I, which remanded various aspects of the Final Results to the Department.4 In particular, the Court made the following holdings:

    4See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 837 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012) (Union Steel I).

    (1) the Department's decision to use financial data pertaining only to the 2008 fiscal year of Union's parent company in determining Union's interest expense ratio cannot be upheld on judicial review; (2) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the court will order the Department to reconsider the “quarterly cost methodology to apply the “recovery-of-costs” test to home-market sales of Union and HYSCO and the “indexing” methodology wherever used in the Final Results; (3) on remand, the Department must reconsider the use in the Final Results of the quarterly-cost and indexing methodologies for various other purposes; (4) the Department must reconsider its decision to depart from its normal method for selecting comparison months of normal value sales; (5) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the court will order the Department to reconsider its decision to compare laminated CORE and non-laminated, painted CORE as “identical” merchandise; (6) in response to defendant's request for a voluntary remand, the court will order that Commerce reconsider the use of the zeroing methodology in the fifteenth review; (7) no relief is available on Dongbu's claim seeking an individually-determined dumping margin; and (8) in response to the defendant's request for a voluntary remand, remand is appropriate on U.S. Steel's challenge to the date of sale used for certain sales by HYSCO through a U.S. affiliate. The court determines, in addition, that any modifications to the weighted-average dumping margins of Union and HYSCO resulting from this remand shall be reflected in the rate applied to Dongbu.5

    5Id., at 1310, 1337-38.

    Pursuant to Union Steel I, the Department issued the First Remand Redetermination,6 in which it addressed the Court's holdings and revised Union's margin from 14.01 percent to 9.85 percent and HYSCO's margin from 3.29 percent to 1.46 percent.7 Again, based on a simple average of the margins calculated for Union and HYSCO, the Department changed Dongbu's margin from 8.65 percent to 5.56 percent.8

    6See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (Sept. 24, 2012) (First Remand Redetermination).

    7See First Remand Redetermination at 67.

    8Id.

    Following consideration of comments submitted to the CIT on the First Remand Redetermination and an oral argument, the Court issued its decision in Union Steel II, which affirmed in part, and remanded in part to the Department, various aspects of the First Remand Redetermination.9 In particular, the Court remanded for the Department to address:

    9See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (Union Steel II).

    (1) the decision to make a major input adjustment when calculating Union's interest expense ratio; (2) the application of the modified “quarterly cost” methodology wherever used in the normal value calculations for Hyundai HYSCO . . . including the difference-in-merchandise (“DIFMER”) adjustments and constructed value (“CV”) determinations; (3) the application of the modified “quarterly cost” methodology for all aspects of the normal value calculations for Union except the revised sales-below-cost and recovery-of-costs tests; (4) the decision to depart from the normal method for selecting a comparison month when determining antidumping margins for Union and HYSCO; and (5) the decision to depart from the normal method by selecting the date of shipment, rather than the date of invoice, as the date of sale for certain sales that HYSCO made through a U.S. affiliate, Hyundai HYSCO USA, Inc.10

    10Id., at 1300, 1327-28.

    The Court also instructed the Department to “recalculate the margin for Dongbu based on the redetermined margins for Union and HYSCO.” 11

    11Id.

    In response to Union Steel II, the Department issued the Second Remand Redetermination in which it reconsidered the remanded issues and revised the 9.85 percent margin it previously determined for Union to 9.83 percent.12 The Department revised HYSCO's margin from 1.46 percent to 5.56 percent.13 Once again assigning Dongbu a margin based on a simple average of the Union and HYSCO margins, the Department changed Dongbu's margin from 5.56 percent to 7.70 percent.14

    12See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, at 44 (Aug. 1, 2014) (Second Remand Redetermination).

    13Id.

    14Id.

    In Union Steel III, the CIT sustained in full the Department's Second Remand Redetermination.15 In particular, the CIT sustained the Department's decision to depart from its 90/60-day window period regulation and to instead limit comparisons of individual U.S. sales to home market sales that occurred during the same quarter, based on the fact that the Department had relied on its quarterly cost methodology because there were significantly changing costs throughout the review period.16 Furthermore, the Court sustained the Department's determination to rely on invoice date instead of shipment date for determining the date of sale for HYSCO's U.S. sales in the Second Remand Redetermination, because certain evidence in HYSCO's questionnaire responses indicated that price remained subject to change after shipment.17 Finally, the Court sustained four other aspects of the Second Remand Redetermination, which were not challenged by any party: (1) The Department's calculation of Union Steel's interest expense ratio; (2) the Department's modification to its cost-recovery test as applied to HYSCO on remand, in which the Department discontinued relying on surrogate costs and relied instead on HYSCO's actual costs from the quarters in which there was production during the period of review; (3) the Department's decision to use unindexed quarterly cost data to calculate CV and DIFMER adjustments; and (4) the Department's use of a surrogate-based method in calculating CV and DIFMER adjustments, which was different than the method used when applying its cost-recovery test to HYSCO in the Department's First Remand Redetermination, which the Court had found objectionable in Union Steel II. 18

    15See Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, Ct. Int'l Trade Slip Op. 16-117 (Dec. 15, 2016) (Union Steel III), at 2, 26.

    16Id., at 16-20.

    17Id., at 11-13.

    18Id., at 5-11.

    Thus, in Union Steel III, the Court affirmed the following dumping margins as calculated by the Department in the Second Remand Redetermination: 9.83 percent for Union, 5.56 percent for HYSCO, and 7.70 percent for Dongbu.

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 19 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 20 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 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 that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's December 15, 2016, final judgement sustaining the Second Remand 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 requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision.

    19See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    20See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu. Based on the Second Remand Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT in Union Steel III, the revised dumping margins for Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu are 9.83 percent, 5.56 percent, and 7.70 percent, respectively.

    In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins listed above.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department notified CBP to discontinue the collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after February 14, 2012, due to the revocation of the order.21 Therefore, no cash deposit requirements will be imposed as a result of these amended final results.

    21See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 78 FR 16832, 16833 (March 19, 2013).

    Notice to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance,
    [FR Doc. 2017-00882 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-869] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Final Negative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that imports of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR tires) from India are not being, or are not likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination.” The finding for whether critical circumstances exist for producers and exporters subject to the all-others rate is moot because the antidumping duty margins for Alliance Tires Private Limited (ATC) and Balkrishna Industries Limited (BKT) are zero. The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lilit Astvatsatrian or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412, or (202) 482-4852, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 19, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.1 In the Preliminary Determination, we postponed the final determination until no later than 135 days after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2

    1See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires: Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 55431 (August 19, 2016) (“Preliminary Determination”) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 55432.

    A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document, and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    3See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance “Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Determination, the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.4 In the Preliminary Determination, we did not modify the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. 5 No interested party submitted scope comments in case or rebuttal briefs. Therefore, the scope of this investigation remains unchanged for this final determination.6

    4See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 55432, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at “Scope Comments.”

    5Id.; see also Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 81 FR 7073 (February 10, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    6 The Department has added two additional subheadings from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to the list included for convenience and customs purposes since the Preliminary Determination. No revisions were made to the written description of the subject merchandise.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are OTR tires from India. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I of this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in August and September 2016, we conducted sales and cost verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by ATC and BKT. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by both respondents.

    Changes to the Dumping Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, pre-verification findings, and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the dumping margin calculations for each respondent, ATC and BKT. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    The Department has relied on partial adverse facts available under sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.7 A full discussion of our decision to rely on adverse facts available is presented in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    7See Sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Final Determination of Critical Circumstances

    On December 9, 2016, Petitioners 8 filed a timely critical circumstances allegation pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(b), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration.9 The finding for whether critical circumstances exist with respect to producers and exporters subject to the all others rate is moot because the antidumping duty margins for ATC and BKT are zero.

    8 Titan Tire Corporation (Titan) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (USW) (collectively, Petitioners).

    9 Letter from ATC, “Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India—Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation,” dated December 9, 2016.

    Final Determination

    The Department determines, as provided in section 735 of the Act, that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit
  • adjusted for
  • subsidy offset
  • ATC Tires Private Ltd 0.00 Not Applicable. Balkrishna Industries Limited 0.00 Not Applicable. All-Others 0.00 Not Applicable.

    Consistent with section 735(c)(1) of the Act, the Department has not determined an estimated all-others rate because it has not made an affirmative final determination of sales at LTFV.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    Because the Department has not made an affirmative final determination of sales at LTFV, we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any entries of OTR tires from India.

    In the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation of OTR tires from India, the Department determined that the all other companies received a benefit from export subsidies.10 In the instant investigation, the antidumping duty margins ATC and BKT are zero and no cash deposits will be collected. Therefore, no adjustment is required for export subsidies pursuant to sections 735(c)(1) and 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d).

    10See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, dated concurrently with this notice.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of announcement, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    U.S. International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission of our final determination.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (APOs)

    This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to APOs 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.

    This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: January 3, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation is certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (certain off road tires). Certain off road tires are tires with an off road tire size designation. The tires included in the scope may be either tube-type 11 or tubeless, radial, or non-radial, regardless of whether for original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.

    11 While tube-type tires are subject to the scope of this proceeding, tubes and flaps are not subject merchandise and therefore are not covered by the scope of this proceeding, regardless of the manner in which they are sold (e.g., sold with or separately from subject merchandise).

    Subject tires may have the following prefix or suffix designation, which appears on the sidewall of the tire:

    Prefix designations:

    DH—Identifies a tire intended for agricultural and logging service which must be mounted on a DH drop center rim.

    VA—Identifies a tire intended for agricultural and logging service which must be mounted on a VA multipiece rim.

    IF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate at 20 percent higher rated load than standard metric tires at the same inflation pressure.

    VF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate at 40 percent higher rated load than standard metric tires at the same inflation pressure.

    Suffix designations:

    ML—Mining and logging tires used in intermittent highway service.

    DT—Tires primarily designed for sand and paver service.

    NHS—Not for Highway Service.

    TG—Tractor Grader, off-the-road tire for use on rims having bead seats with nominal +0.188” diameter (not for highway service).

    K—Compactor tire for use on 5° drop center or semi-drop center rims having bead seats with nominal minus 0.032 diameter.

    IND—Drive wheel tractor tire used in industrial service.

    SL—Service limited to agricultural usage.

    FI—Implement tire for agricultural towed highway service.

    CFO—Cyclic Field Operation.

    SS—Differentiates tires for off-highway vehicles such as mini and skid-steer loaders from other tires which use similar size designations such as 7.00-15TR and 7.00-15NHS, but may use different rim bead seat configurations.

    All tires marked with any of the prefixes or suffixes listed above in their sidewall markings are covered by the scope regardless of their intended use.

    In addition, all tires that lack any of the prefixes or suffixes listed above in their sidewall markings are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the following sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, as updated annually, unless the tire falls within one of the specific exclusions set forth below. The sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book listing numerical size designations of covered certain off road tires include:

    The table of mining and logging tires included in the section on Truck-Bus tires;

    The entire section on Off-the-Road tires;

    The entire section on Agricultural tires; and

    The following tables in the section on Industrial/ATV/Special Trailer tires:

    • Industrial, Mining, Counterbalanced Lift Truck (Smooth Floors Only);

    • Industrial and Mining (Other than Smooth Floors);

    • Construction Equipment;

    • Off-the-Road and Counterbalanced Lift Truck (Smooth Floors Only);

    • Aerial Lift and Mobile Crane; and

    • Utility Vehicle and Lawn and Garden Tractor.

    Certain off road tires, whether or not mounted on wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes certain off road tires produced in the subject countries whether mounted on wheels or rims in a subject country or in a third country. Certain off road tires are covered whether or not they are accompanied by other parts, e.g., a wheel, rim, axle parts, bolts, nuts, etc. Certain off road tires that enter attached to a vehicle are not covered by the scope.

    Specifically excluded from the scope are passenger vehicle and light truck tires, racing tires, mobile home tires, motorcycle tires, all-terrain vehicle tires, bicycle tires, on-road or on-highway trailer tires, and truck and bus tires. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following prefixes and suffixes included as part of the size designation on their sidewalls:

    Prefix letter designations:

    AT—Identifies a tire intended for service on All-Terrain Vehicles;

    P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars;

    LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks;

    T—Identifies a tire intended for one-position “temporary use” as a spare only; and

    ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service.

    Suffix letter designations:

    TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156” or plus 0.250”;

    MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes;

    HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15” tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation.

    Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC;

    LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service;

    ST—Special tires for trailers in highway service; and

    M/C—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles.

    The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: Pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; aircraft tires; and turf, lawn and garden, and golf tires. Also excluded from the scope are mining and construction tires that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds).

    The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 4011.20.5030, 4011.20.5050, 4011.61.0000, 4011.62.0000, 4011.63.0000, 4011.69.0050, 4011.92.0000, 4011.93.4000, 4011.93.8000, 4011.94.4000, 4011.94.8000, 8431.49.9038, 8431.49.9090, 8709.90.0020, and 8716.90.1020. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.99.4550, 4011.99.8550, 8424.90.9080, 8431.20.0000, 8431.39.0010, 8431.49.1090, 8431.49.9030, 8432.90.0005, 8432.90.0015, 8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8433.90.5010, 8503.00.9560, 8708.70.0500, 8708.70.2500, 8708.70.4530, 8716.90.5035, 8716.90.5055, 8716.90.5056 and 8716.90.5059. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Discussion of the Issues: Comment 1: Standard Differential Pricing Methodology Comment 2: Unreported U.S. Sample Sales Comment 3: Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade Comment 4: Commission Offset Comment 5: ATC's Revised Cost Database Submitted After Verification Comment 6: Affirmative Determination of ATC Comment 7: Correction of Minor Errors from U.S. Sales Verification Comment 8: Warranty Comment 9: Other Discounts Comment 10: Classification of BKT's Sales Comment 11: Duty Drawback Comment 12: CEP Offset Comment 13: Quantity Unit of Measure Comment 14: Correction of Verification Errors Comment 15: Correction of Preliminary Determination Errors VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-00869 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-050] Ammonium Sulfate From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of ammonium sulfate from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of investigation is January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Galantucci, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2923.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 2, 2016, the Department published its preliminary affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of ammonium sulfate from the PRC in the Federal Register.1 We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Determination, and/or request a hearing. No party, including the mandatory respondents 2 and the Government of China (GOC), submitted comments or requested a hearing.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 81 FR 76332 (November 2, 2016) (Preliminary Determination).

    2 The Department selected Wuzhoufeng Agricultural Science & Technology Co. Ltd. (Wuzhoufeng AST) and Yantai Jiahe Agriculture Means of Production Co. Ltd. (Yantai AMP) as mandatory respondents.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is ammonium sulfate from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix II.

    Verification

    None of the mandatory respondents in this investigation provided information requested by the Department. Hence, no verification was conducted.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available (AFA)

    As discussed above, we received no comments from interested parties pertaining to the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, for this final determination, and pursuant to sections 776(a)-(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we continue to rely on facts available for Wuzhoufeng AST and Yantai AMP, the two mandatory respondents, and the GOC, which did not respond to our countervailing duty questionnaires.3 Further, we continue to find that Wuzhoufeng AST, Yantai AMP, and the GOC failed to act to the best of their ability and, therefore, we are drawing an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available to determine whether the programs subject to this investigation constitute countervailable subsidies and to calculate the ad valorem rates for Wuzhoufeng AST and Yantai AMP.4

    3See Memorandum, ” Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China,” dated October 24, 2016 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) at 1-2, 5-7 and Attachment 1.

    4See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    For this final determination, as AFA, we continue to find all programs included in this proceeding to be countervailable, i.e., they provide a financial contribution within the meaning of sections 771(5)(B)(i) and (D) of the Act, confer a benefit within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act, and are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act.5 The Department's calculation of the AFA rate was discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum which is incorporated by reference, and hereby adopted by, this final determination.6 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    5See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 6-10.

    6See id. at Attachment 1.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated countervailing duty rates for the individually investigated producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Wuzhoufeng AST and Yantai AMP.

    With respect to the “all-others” rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailing duty rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, the rates assigned to Wuzhoufeng AST and Yantai AMP are based entirely on facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, under section 776 of the Act. Because there is no other information on the record with which to determine an all-others rate, in accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have established the all-others rate by applying the countervailable subsidy rates for mandatory respondents Wuzhoufeng AST and Yantai AMP. The final countervailable subsidy rates are summarized in the table below.

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Wuzhoufeng Agricultural Science & Technology Co. Ltd 206.72 Yantai Jiahe Agriculture Means of Production Co. Ltd 206.72 All-Others 206.72
    Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend all entries of ammonium sulfate from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation,” that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 2, 2016, the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. Additionally, at that time, we instructed CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the rates determined in the Preliminary Determination. 7 The suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits will remain in effect until further notice.

    7See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 76332.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and to continue to require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited, or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation, will be refunded or canceled.

    Disclosure

    We described the calculations used to determine CVD rates based on AFA in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.8 Thus, no additional disclosure of calculations is necessary for this final determination.

    ITC Notification

    8See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at “Application of AFA: Wuzhoufeng AST and Yantai AMP, and the GOC.”

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice will serve as a reminder to the parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APOs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: January 9, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Injury Test VI. Application of the CVD Law to Imports From the PRC VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VIII. Calculation of the All-Others Rate IX. ITC Notification X. Public Comment XI. Conclusion Appendix II Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is ammonium sulfate in all physical forms, with or without additives such as anti-caking agents. Ammonium sulfate, which may also be spelled as ammonium sulphate, has the chemical formula (NH4)2SO4.

    The scope includes ammonium sulfate that is combined with other products, including by, for example, blending (i.e., mixing granules of ammonium sulfate with granules of one or more other products), compounding (i.e., when ammonium sulfate is compacted with one or more other products under high pressure), or granulating (incorporating multiple products into granules through, e.g., a slurry process). For such combined products, only the ammonium sulfate component is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    Ammonium sulfate that has been combined with other products is included within the scope regardless of whether the combining occurs in countries other than China.

    Ammonium sulfate that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled (i.e., mixed or combined) with ammonium sulfate from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number for ammonium sulfate is 7783-20-2.

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3102.21.0000. Although this HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-00843 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-898] Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On July 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its Preliminary Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates (“chloro isos”) from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”). The period of review (POR) is June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015. This review covers three producers/exporters: (1) Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Heze Huayi”); (2) Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Jiheng”); and (3) Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Kangtai”). We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to our margin calculations for all three respondents. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results” section below.

    DATES:

    Effective January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3964.

    Background

    On July 12, 2016, the Department published its Preliminary Results of the administrative review.1 On August 25, 2016, respondents Heze Huayi, Kangtai, Jiheng, collectively submitted a case brief.2 On September 6, 2016, Biolab, Inc., Clearon Corp. and Occidental Chemical Corp. (collectively, “Petitioners”) submitted a rebuttal brief.3

    1See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 45128 (July 12, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    2See “Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief,” (August 25, 2016).

    3See “The Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief of Biolab, Inc., Clearon Corp. and Occidental Chemical Corporation,” (September 6, 2016).

    On October 21, 2016, the Department fully extended the deadline for the final results in this administrative review until January 9, 2017.4 The Department held a public hearing on December 14, 2016, to address issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs.5

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” (October 21, 2016).

    5See Hearing Transcript, “Public Hearing in the Matter of: Administrative Review under the Antidumping Duty Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China,” (December 20, 2016).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are chloro isos, which are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. Chlorinated isos are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 and 3808.94.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of merchandise subject to the scope is dispositive. For a full description of the scope of the order, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.6

    6See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China; 2014-2015,” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”) issued concurrently with this notice for a complete description of the scope of the Order.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made revisions to the margin calculations for all three companies as a result of changes in the surrogate financial ratios and the surrogate value for steam coal.7

    7See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 1.

    Final Results of Administrative Review

    The weighted-average dumping margins for the administrative review are as follows:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd 53.95 Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd 61.03 Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd 35.05
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).8 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.9 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.10 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.11

    8See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    9Id.

    10Id.

    11See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide entity rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide entity rate.12

    12See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing producer/exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 285.63 percent; 13 and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13 For an explanation on the derivation of the PRC-wide rate, see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 24502, 24505 (May 10, 2005).

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed regarding these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and that subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: January 9, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Changes Since the Preliminary Results Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Selection of the Primary Surrogate Country Comment 2: Selection of Mexican Surrogate Value Information over the Romanian Surrogate Value Information A. Surrogate Financial Ratios B. Surrogate Values for Certain Other Inputs Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-00825 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-601] Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On July 13, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review and intent to reinstate Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. (SGBC/SKF) in the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, (TRBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). This review covers TRBs from the PRC manufactured and exported by SGBC/SKF. The period of review is June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. Further, we continue to determine that SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than normal value (NV), and, as a result, we are reinstating SGBC/SKF in the antidumping order on TRBs from the PRC. The final weighted-average dumping margin is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”

    DATES:

    Effective January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4682.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 13, 2016, the Department published the preliminary results of this changed circumstances review and intent to reinstate SGBC/SKF in the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC.1 This review covers TRBs from the PRC manufactured and exported by SGBC/SKF. The period of review is June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.

    1See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent To Reinstate Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Order, 81 FR 45282 (July 13, 2016) (CCR Preliminary Results).

    In August 2016, we received case briefs from the Timken Company (the petitioner) and SGBC/SKF; we also received a letter in lieu of a case brief from Stemco LP (Stemco), an interested party in the proceeding, in which Stemco supported the arguments made in the petitioner's case brief. In September 2016, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner and SGBC/SKF. In October 2016, the Department held a public hearing at the request of the petitioner.

    The Department conducted this changed circumstances review in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order 2 includes tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.3

    2See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China, 52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987) (Order).

    3 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China,” from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated concurrently with, and adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memo).

    Basis for Reinstatement

    In requesting revocation, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b) (1996) and 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii) (1996),4 SGBC/SKF agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order, so long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that subsequent to the revocation, SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at less than NV.5 Under 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii) (1996), as long as any exporter or producer is subject to an antidumping duty order which remains in force, an entity previously granted a revocation may be reinstated under that order if it is established that the entity has resumed the dumping of subject merchandise.

    4 The regulation that was in effect when SGBC/SKF requested revocation was amended in 1997 to become 19 CFR 351.222(b). This regulation was then revoked in 2012. See Modification to Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 29875 (May 21, 2012). However, when revoking this regulation, the Department noted that “[a]ny company that has been revoked from an antidumping . . . order will remain subject to its certified agreement to be reinstated with respect to that order if the Department finds it to have resumed dumping . . . .” See id. at 29882.

    5See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 6189 (February 11, 1997) (for the 1993-1994 review) (SGBC/SKF Revocation).

    In this case, because other exporters in the PRC remain subject to the TRBs order, the order remains in effect, and SGBC/SKF may be reinstated in the order. The Department granted SGBC/SKF revocation based, in part, upon its agreement to immediate reinstatement in the antidumping duty order if the Department were to find that the company resumed dumping of TRBs from the PRC.6

    6See SGBC/SKF Revocation, 62 FR at 6214.

    As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memo, we examined SGBC/SKF's response and preliminarily found that SGBC/SKF's dumping margin for the review period is greater than de minimis. Accordingly, we are reinstating SGBC/SKF in the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this changed circumstances review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memo. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memo 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 it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memo can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memo and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memo are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes in the margin calculation for SGBC/SKF. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Issues and Decision Memo.

    Final Results of Review

    The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015:

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average dumping margin (percent) Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. 5.82 Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because we established that TRBs from the PRC manufactured and exported by SGBC/SKF are being sold at less than NV, SGBC/SKF is hereby reinstated in the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC effective upon the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect a cash deposit equal to the margin listed above on all entries of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by SGBC/SKF that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice. This deposit requirement, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only 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 of review in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Margin Calculations 5. Discussion of the Issues a. Factor Reporting Methodology b. Surrogate Value for Truck Freight c. Ministerial Errors d. Adjustment to Inland Freight for Subcontracted Parts e. Differential Pricing Analysis 6. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-00826 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) originally published a document announcing an upcoming meeting of the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT or Committee) on January 3, 2017 (82 FR 92). The meeting time, dates, and details have been updated. The VCAT will now meet by webinar in an open session on Wednesday, February 8, 2017 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The VCAT is composed of fifteen members appointed by the NIST Director who are eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations.

    DATES:

    The VCAT will meet by webinar on Wednesday, February 8, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be conducted by webinar. Please note instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice for participation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Serena Martinez, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1060, telephone number 301-975-2661. Mrs. Martinez's email address is [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.

    The purpose of this meeting is for the VCAT to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include an update on NIST, to include safety, and a discussion on future VCAT meeting topics and structure. NIST will also provide a brief update on the Administration and Congressional Landscape. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at http://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/agenda.cfm.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion by using a toll-free call-in number. When you register by email to Mrs. Serena Martinez, [email protected], with your name, organization affiliated with (if any), and email address, the toll-free call-in information, including passcode, will be provided to you. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Committee will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charges for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free call-in number. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda by email to [email protected], no later than January 31, 2017 by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Approximately one-half hour will be reserved for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the NIST Web site at http://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/agenda.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, and those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda are invited to submit written statements to VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899, via fax at 301-216-0529 or electronically by email to [email protected] .

    Kevin Kimball, NIST Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00756 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF158 Endangered Species; File No. 19508 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Katherine Mansfield, Ph.D., University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Building 20, BIO301, Orlando, FL 32825, has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherback (Dermochelys coraicea) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 19508 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hubard or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    The applicant requests a five-year permit to examine patterns and trends in the abundance, distribution, movements, foraging ecology, and population structure of sea turtles. Research would occur in three study areas: (1) Indian River Lagoon, Florida; (2) Trident Turning Basin, Cape Canaveral, Florida; and (3) Northern and Eastern Gulf of Mexico, which includes waters up to 120 miles offshore from Louisiana to Western Florida. Researchers would capture sea turtles by tangle net, dip net, or by hand; annual requested take numbers per species vary by year and project. Sea turtles would have the following procedures performed before release: Measure, flipper tag, passive integrated transponder tag, photograph/video, gastric lavage, and scute, blood, fecal, and tissue sampling. A subset of animals would receive an epoxy-attached transmitter before release.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00811 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF163 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scallop Plan Team will meet February 22, 2017.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 22, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Fishermen's Hall, 403 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:

    Jim Armstrong, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Wednesday, February 22, 2017

    The agenda includes updating the status of the Statewide Scallop Stocks and Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) compilation, update on monitoring ocean acidification and its potential effect on the scallop stocks, update on new scallop assessment programs and a review of research priorities. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is 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: January 11, 2017. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00887 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF086 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; availability of a draft environmental assessment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from Dr. David Kerstetter of Nova Southeastern University to evaluate pelagic longline (PLL) catch and bycatch rates from within two different sub-areas in the northern portion of the East Florida Coast Pelagic Longline (PLL) Closed Area (north and south of 29°50′ N. lat.) and compare those rates to rates obtained by authorized samplers from outside the EFC PLL Closed Area and the availability of a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts of granting the application to conduct the research using commercial PLL vessels, with certain terms and conditions. The overall purpose of the research project would be to evaluate PLL catches and catch rates of target and non-target species within a portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area to evaluate the effectiveness of existing area closures at meeting current conservation and management goals under current conditions using standardized PLL gear on a specified number of commercial vessels.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the issuance of the EFP or on the draft EA will be considered by NMFS and must be received on or before February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line the following identifier: 0648-XF086.

    Mail: Margo Schulze-Haugen, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Craig Cockrell at (301) 427-8503 or Rick Pearson at (727) 824-5399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS published a notice of intent to issue EFPs, Scientific Research Permits, Letters of Acknowledgement, and Chartering Permits for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) in 2017 (81 FR 80646, November 16, 2016). Although that notice anticipated a variety of applications, it also stated that occasionally, NMFS receives applications for research activities that were not anticipated, or for research that is outside the scope of general scientific sampling and tagging of Atlantic HMS, or rarely, for research that is particularly controversial and that NMFS will provide additional opportunity for public comment, consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 if that were to occur.

    As discussed in the November 2016 notice of intent to issue EFPs and related permits, issuance of EFPs and related permits are necessary because HMS regulations (e.g., fishing seasons, prohibited species, authorized gear, closed areas, and minimum sizes) may otherwise prohibit activities that could be undertaken for scientific data collection or other valuable purposes. Thus, pursuant to 50 CFR parts 600 and 635, a NMFS Regional Administrator or Director may issue permits to authorize, for limited testing, public display, data collection, exploratory fishing, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, health and safety surveys, environmental cleanup, and/or hazard removal purposes, the target or incidental harvest of species managed under an FMP or fishery regulations that would otherwise be prohibited. These permits exempt permit holders from the specific portions of the regulations (e.g., fishing seasons, prohibited species, authorized gear, closed areas, and minimum sizes) that may otherwise prohibit the collection of HMS for public education, public display, or scientific research. The terms and conditions of individual permits are unique. EFPs and related permits are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and/or the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.).

    NMFS closed the EFC area to PLL gear year-round in early 2001 (65 FR 47213, August 1, 2000). The closure was implemented to reduce bycatch and incidental catch of overfished and protected species by PLL fishermen who target HMS because there was a noticeable difference in the bycatch of some non-target species (mainly undersized swordfish) between the EFC area and open areas. At the time, Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, bluefin tuna, and swordfish were overfished, and bycatch reduction was a component of rebuilding efforts. In particular, the United States was implementing a 1999 swordfish rebuilding plan, and the closure helped reduce bycatch of undersized swordfish. Several other laws required that NMFS address bycatch in the HMS fisheries, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which required reductions in sea turtle bycatch in the PLL fishery. National Standard 9 of the MSA also requires that fishery management plans minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.

    The closure has been in place for more than 15 years and, since 2001, a number of changes in stock status and fishery management measures have occurred. Specifically, North Atlantic swordfish has been rebuilt since 2009, current international assessments of white marlin and Western Atlantic sailfish indicate that overfishing is likely not occurring, the PLL fishery has been required since 2004 to use circle hooks instead of J-hooks to reduce sea turtle bycatch, and individual bluefin tuna quota (IBQ) allocations were implemented in the PLL fishery through Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan in 2014 (79 FR 71509, December 2, 2014). Allowing limited access to the EFC PLL Closed Area for research purposes via an EFP would provide important data from the closed area under these changed conditions. NMFS has not obtained scientific data related to catch and bycatch rates from this area since 2010, and that data suggested that more research was needed due to the small sample size and poor spatial distribution of PLL sets in the research conducted from 2008-2010. The data resulting from the research under this EFP would be used to assess current bycatch rates during typical commercial fishing operations and to evaluate the effectiveness of the closed area in continuing to reduce bycatch of non-target species (e.g., billfish, undersized swordfish, prohibited species, and protected species). It would also provide more current data about the socio-economic impact of reduced catches of target species (swordfish and tunas) as a result of the closure, assess changes in species availability and distribution over time, and contribute to future stock assessments or other fishery management measures. Among the purposes of EFPs in the regulations are the “conduct of scientific research, the acquisition of information and data . . ., [and] the investigation of bycatch, economic discard and regulatory discard,” and such an EFP would be in furtherance of those purposes (§ 635.32(a)(1)).

    NMFS received an application to conduct research within two portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area and one portion of the open area (for comparative purposes) and has made a preliminary determination that it warrants further consideration and an opportunity for public comment. The application is available for review on the HMS Management Division's Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/efp/index.html. The research conducted within the EFC PLL Closed Area and in the open areas would be carried out by no more than six PLL vessels at any one time. An additional seven “backup” vessels could be used to conduct research as replacements if any mechanical or technical issues arise on the other six vessels. The proposed research project would be authorized for 12 months and, pending annual review of any changed environmental conditions or impacts and of catches and catch rates of all species, as well as individual vessel performance, may be re-authorized for two additional 12-month periods. A maximum of 1,080 sets per year (12 months) would be authorized to occur between the six vessels, and sets would be distributed evenly between two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and one open area. Each set would consist of a maximum of 750 16/0 or larger circle hooks.

    NMFS invites comment on certain terms and conditions that we believe would be appropriate for inclusion on this EFP, if issued. The commercial vessels that would be participating in this EFP project are otherwise authorized to fish and, absent this EFP, would be conducting normal PLL fishing operations in open areas consistent with their past practices. NMFS conducted an analysis that compared projected catches if vessels were to continue fishing only in open areas (i.e., all effort in open areas) versus projected catches from fishing operations under the EFP (i.e., 2/3 effort in closed area and 1/3 effort in open area). The analysis indicated that fishing operations under the EFP could result in comparatively higher interactions with dusky, silky, and night sharks. Many of the proposed terms and conditions are structured to maximize the survival of these shark species and to increase the Agency's understanding of these data poor stocks. The proposed terms and conditions include:

    • During the proposed research project, 33 percent of sets occurring in both portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area and in open areas would be observed by NMFS-trained NOVA Southeastern University students or NMFS-approved observers.

    • NMFS would review 100 percent of electronic monitoring data for sets occurring in both portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area and in open areas.

    • After three dusky sharks are discarded dead by a vessel participating in the EFP, that vessel would be required to reduce the soak time of the gear to no longer than 10 hours when conducting fishing operations under the EFP. If, after reducing the soak time to no longer than 10 hours, an additional three dusky sharks are discarded dead, then that vessel would no longer be authorized to fish in the EFC PLL Closed Area under this EFP, if issued, for the remainder of the 12-month project period, unless otherwise permitted by NMFS.

    • All live sharks caught but not being retained must be safely sampled (e.g., fin clip) and photographed without removing the shark from the water. All fin clips and photographs would be sent to the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) for identification purposes.

    • All sharks that are dead at haul back, including prohibited species, and all sharks being retained for sale must be biologically sampled (e.g., vertebra and reproductive organs removed) to facilitate species identification and collection of life history information. All biological samples would be sent to the SEFSC.

    • Sets inside and outside of the closed areas would be equipped with hook timers, in accordance with protocols established by NMFS, to determine when animals were captured and when mortality occurs.

    Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment

    NMFS is also announcing the availability of a draft EA that analyzes the potential impacts to the human environment of granting this EFP application for experimental PLL fishing within northern portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area and one area outside the Closed Area, as the request is described above. Among other analyzed impacts, the draft EA projects the annual catches of all HMS species, as well as some non-HMS species interactions, from the EFC PLL Closed Area and open areas that could be expected to occur if this EFP is approved. Additionally, the draft EA describes NMFS' rationale for the preferred alternative and other alternatives under consideration for this research. The draft EA may be found on the HMS Management Division's Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/efp/index.html. Comments on the draft EA may be submitted via the methods outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00791 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF153 Marine Mammals; File No. 20043 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Whitlow Au, Ph.D., University of Hawaii, P.O. Box 1346, Kaneohe, HI 96744, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals in Hawaii.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 20043 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Young or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

    The applicant requests a five-year permit to investigate the population dynamics and behavior of cetaceans around Hawaii and the Pacific, to study: (1) The behavior and use of the acoustic environment by large whales, and (2) the effects of noise on behavior of cetaceans around Hawaii. The applicant proposes to use genetic sampling, suction-cup acoustic recording tags, high frequency pinger tags, biopsy sampling, darted satellite tags, acoustic recording, underwater video recording, behavioral observation, photo-identification, and acoustic playbacks. Target species would be: Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), killer whale (Orcinus orca), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima), pygmy sperm whale (K. breviceps), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra), short-beaked common dolphin (D. delphis), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), spinner dolphin (S. longirostris), pantropical spotted dolphin (S. attenuata), bottlenose dolphin (Turisiops truncatus), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis).

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00802 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF117 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and Hearings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of opportunities to submit public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) has announced its annual preseason management process for the 2017 ocean salmon fisheries. This notice informs the public of opportunities to provide comments on the 2017 ocean salmon management measures.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the salmon management alternatives adopted by the Pacific Council at its March 2017 meeting, and described in Preseason Report II, received electronically or in hard copy by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, March 31, 2017, will be considered in the Pacific Council's final recommendation for the 2017 management measures.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents will be available from Mr. Herb Pollard, Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384, and posted on the Pacific Council Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org. You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0160, by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0160, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Mr. Herb Pollard, Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    Fax: 503-820-2299, Attn: Ms. Robin Ehlke.

    • Comments can also be submitted via email to [email protected]

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual may not be considered by NMFS or the Pacific Council. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://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 and the Pacific Council will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Robin Ehlke, Pacific Council, telephone: 503-820-2280. For information on submitting comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal, contact Peggy Mundy, NMFS West Coast Region, telephone: 206-526-4323; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Pacific Council has published its annual notice of availability of reports, public meetings, and hearings for the 2017 ocean salmon fisheries (81 FR 95568, December 28, 2016). The Pacific Council will adopt alternatives for 2017 ocean salmon fisheries at its meeting, March 7-14, 2017, at the Hilton in Vancouver, WA. Details of this meeting are available on the Pacific Council's Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org) and will be published in the Federal Register in February 2017. On March 22, 2017, “Preseason Report II—Proposed Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Part 2 for 2017 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations” is scheduled to be posted on the Pacific Council Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org. The report will include a description of the salmon management alternatives and a summary of their biological and economic impacts. Public hearings will be held to receive comments on the proposed ocean salmon fishery management alternatives adopted by the Pacific Council. Written comments received at the public hearings and a summary of oral comments at the hearings will be provided to the Pacific Council at its April meeting.

    All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. at the following locations:

    • March 27, 2017: Chateau Westport, Beach Room, 710 West Hancock, Westport, WA 98595, telephone 360-268-9101.

    • March 27, 2017: Red Lion Hotel, South Umpqua Room, 1313 North Bayshore Drive, Coos Bay, OR 97420, telephone 541-267-4141.

    • March 28, 2017: City of Fort Bragg. Town Hall, 363 North Main Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437, telephone: (707) 961-2823.

    Comments on the alternatives the Pacific Council adopts at its March 2017 meeting, and described in Preseason Report II, may be submitted in writing or electronically as described under ADDRESSES, or verbally or in writing at any of the public hearings held on March 27-28, 2017, or at the Pacific Council's meeting, April 6-12, 2017, at the DoubleTree by Hilton, in Sacramento, CA. Details of these meetings will be available on the Pacific Council's Web site (http://www.pcouncil.org) and will be published in the Federal Register. Written and electronically submitted comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, March 31, 2017, in order to be included in the briefing book for the April Council meeting where they will be considered in the adoption of the Pacific Council's final recommendation for the 2017 salmon fishery management measures. All comments received accordingly will be reviewed and considered by the Pacific Council and NMFS.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00801 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Sea Scallops Amendment 10 Data Collection AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before March 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Shannah Jaburek, (978) 282-8456 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Greater Atlantic Region manages the Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) fishery of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the East Coast under the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The regulations implementing the FMP are at 50 CFR part 648. To successfully implement and administer components of the FMP, OMB Control No. 0648-0491 includes the following information collections for scallop vessel owners, operators, and fishery participants: Vessel monitoring system (VMS) trip declarations for all scallop vessels, including powerdown declarations; notification of access area trip termination for limited access scallop vessels; submission of access area compensation trip identification; submission of access area trip exchange forms; VMS purchase and installation for individuals that purchase a federally permitted scallop vessel; VMS daily catch reports; submission of ownership cap forms for individual fishing quota (IFQ) scallop vessels; submission of vessel replacement, upgrade and permit history applications for IFQ, Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM), and Incidental Catch (IC) scallop vessels; submission of VMS pre-landing notification form by IFQ vessels and limited access vessels for access areas; enrollment into the state waters exemption program; submission of requests for IFQ transfers; payment of cost recovery bills for IFQ vessels; sector proposals for IFQ vessels and industry participants; and sector operations plans for approved sector proposals.

    Data collected through these programs are incorporated into the NMFS database and are used to track and confirm vessel permit status and eligibility, scallop landings, and scallop vessel allocations. Aggregated summaries of the collected information will be used to evaluate the management program and future management proposals.

    II. Method of Collection

    Participants will submit electronic VMS transmissions and paper applications by mail, facsimile, or email.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0648-0491.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 647.

    Estimated Time per Response: VMS trip declaration, trip termination, compensation trip identification, powerdown provision, daily catch reports, 2 minutes; access area trip exchange, 15 minutes; VMS purchase and installation, 2 hours; IFQ ownership cap forms, 5 minutes; vessel replacement, upgrade and permit history applications, 3 hours; VMS pre-landing notification form, 5 minutes; VMS state waters exemption program, 2 minutes; quota transfers, 10 minutes; cost recovery, 2 hours; sector proposals, 150 hours; sector operations plans, 100 hours; IFQ, Northern Gulf of Maine, and incidental catch vessel VMS requirements, 2 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,460.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $790,283.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00816 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF154 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 19703 and 20993 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of applications.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Fred Sharpe, Ph.D., Alaska Whale Foundation, 4739 University Way NE., #1230, Seattle, WA 98105 (File No. 19703) has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on cetaceans and Christopher Cilfone, Be Blue, 2569 Douglas Hwy. Unit 1, Juneau, AK 99801 (File No. 20993) has applied in due form to conduct commercial/educational photography on humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae).

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents for File No. 19703 are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 19703 from the list of available applications.

    Documents for File No. 19703 and 20993 are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on these applications should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hubard or Shasta McClenahan, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

    Dr. Sharpe (File No. 19703) proposes to study humpback and killer (Orcinus orca) whales in Alaska using both vessel and aerial surveys and a variety of methods including photo-identification, passive and active acoustics, underwater video/photography, unmanned aircraft systems, prey mapping, and suction-cup tagging. The purpose of the research is to continue a long-term study of the behavior of Alaskan humpback whales, focusing on social structure, vocalizations, and feeding. Forty harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), 50 Dall's porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli), 130 harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and 80 Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) may be incidentally harassed during research activities. The permit would be valid for five years.

    Mr. Cilfone (File No. 20993) proposes to film humpback whales in Hawaiian waters of the Maui Nui Basin. Footage would be used to create a film about humpback whales and their conservation success that would be available on multiple platforms. Boats, unmanned aircraft systems, pole cameras, and snorkelers would all be used to get footage. Fifty humpback whales would be approached annually. In addition, pantropical spotted (Stenella attenuata), spinner (S. longirostris), and bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) dolphins may be incidentally harassed during filming operations. Filming would occur in winter and spring and the permit would be valid until May 2017.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00807 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF161 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tilefish Advisory Panel of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 9, 2017, beginning at 9 a.m. and conclude by 12 noon. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/tile-ap-2017/.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their Web site at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to create a fishery performance report by the Council's Tilefish Advisory Panel. The intent of this report is to facilitate a venue for structured input from the Advisory Panel members for the Golden and Blueline Tilefish specifications process, including recommendations by the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00818 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Multistakeholder Process on Internet of Things Security Upgradability and Patching AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will convene a virtual meeting of a multistakeholder process concerning Internet of Things Security Upgradability and Patching on January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on January 31, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    This is a virtual meeting. NTIA will post links to online content and dial-in information on the multistakeholder process Web site at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/multistakeholder-process-iot-security.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allan Friedman, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4281; email: [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs: (202) 482-7002; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: In March of 2015 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued a Request for Comment to “identify substantive cybersecurity issues that affect the digital ecosystem and digital economic growth where broad consensus, coordinated action, and the development of best practices could substantially improve security for organizations and consumers.” 1 We received comments from a range of stakeholders, including trade associations, large companies, cybersecurity startups, civil society organizations and independent computer security experts.2 The comments recommended a diverse set of issues that might be addressed through the multistakeholder process, including cybersecurity policy and practice in the emerging area of Internet of Things (IoT). On August 2, 2016, NTIA announced that it would convene a new multistakeholder process on security upgradability and patching for consumer IoT.3 NTIA subsequently announced that the first meeting of this process would be held on October 19, 2016.4

    1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Request for Public Comment, Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem, 80 FR 14360, Docket No. 150312253-5253-01 (Mar. 19, 2015), available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/cybersecurity_rfc_03192015.pdf.

    2 NTIA has posted the public comments received at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2015/comments-stakeholder-engagement-cybersecurity-digital-ecosystem.

    3 NTIA, Increasing the Potential of IoT through Security and Transparency (Aug. 2, 2016), available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/increasing-potential-iot-through-security-and-transparency.

    4 NTIA, Notice of Multistakeholder Process on Internet of Things Security Upgradability and Patching Open Meeting (Sept. 15, 2016), available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2016/10192016-meeting-notice-msp-iot-security-upgradability-patching.

    The matter of patching vulnerable systems is now an accepted part of cybersecurity.5 Unaddressed technical flaws in systems leave the users of software and systems at risk. The nature of these risks varies, and mitigating these risks requires various efforts from the developers and owners of these systems. One of the more common means of mitigation is for the developer or other maintaining party to issue a security patch to address the vulnerability. Patching has become more commonly accepted, even for consumers, as more operating systems and applications shift to visible reminders and automated updates. Yet as one security expert notes, this evolution of the software industry has yet to become the dominant model in IoT.6

    5See, e.g., Murugiah Souppaya and Karen Scarfone, Guide to Enterprise Patch Management Technologies, Special Publication 800-40 Revision 3, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST SP 800-40 (2013) available at: http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-40r3.pdf.

    6 Bruce Schneier, The Internet of Things Is Wildly Insecure—And Often Unpatchable, Wired (Jan. 6, 2014) available at: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/security_risks_9.html.

    To help realize the full innovative potential of IoT, users need reasonable assurance that connected devices, embedded systems, and their applications will be secure. A key part of that security is the mitigation of potential security vulnerabilities in IoT devices or applications through patching and security upgrades.

    The ultimate objective of the multistakeholder process is to foster a market offering more devices and systems that support security upgrades through increased consumer awareness and understanding. Enabling a thriving market for patchable IoT requires common definitions so that manufacturers and solution providers have shared visions for security, and consumers know what they are purchasing. Currently, no such common, widely accepted definitions exist, so many manufacturers struggle to effectively communicate to consumers the security features of their devices. This is detrimental to the digital ecosystem as a whole, as it does not reward companies that invest in patching, and it prevents consumers from making informed purchasing choices.

    At the October 19, 2016, meeting, stakeholders discussed the challenge of patching, and how to scope the discussion. Participants identified five distinct work streams that could help foster better security across the ecosystem, and established working groups to more fully evaluate options in each of these areas.7 The main objective of the January 31, 2016, meeting is to share progress from the working groups examining the five work streams, and hear feedback from the broader stakeholder community. Stakeholders will also discuss overall progress on the initiative, and identify any additional work that may be needed.

    7See NTIA, Multistakeholder Process; Internet of Things (IoT) Security Upgradability and Patching, at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/multistakeholder-process-iot-security.

    More information about stakeholders' work will be available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/multistakeholder-process-iot-security.

    Time and Date: NTIA will convene a virtual meeting of the multistakeholder process on IoT Security Upgradability and Patching on January 31, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/multistakeholder-process-iot-security, for the most current information.

    Place: This is a virtual meeting. NTIA will post links to online content and dial-in information on the multistakeholder process Web site at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/multistakeholder-process-iot-security.

    Other Information: The meeting is open to the public and the press. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders viewing the webcast to participate remotely in the meetings through a moderated conference bridge, including polling functionality. Access details for the meetings are subject to change. Requests for a transcript of the meeting or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Allan Friedman at (202) 482-4281 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to each meeting. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/multistakeholder-process-iot-security, for the most current information.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Kathy D. Smith, Chief, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00817 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Amendment of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is amending the charter for the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being amended in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The amended charter and contact information for the Committee's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    The DoD is amending the charter for the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (“the Committee”) previously published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48763). The Committee's charter is being amended to update the number of permanent subcommittees to two and establish the function of the new Remember and Explore subcommittee. All other aspects of the Committee's charter, as previously published, will apply to the Committee.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00862 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Termination of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Termination of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is terminating the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 576 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) rescinds 22 U.S.C. 929, which is the statutory authority for the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education (“the Council”). Therefore, the Department of Defense is terminating the Council.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00868 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2008-HA-0180] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Professional Qualifications Medical/Peer Reviewers; CHAMPUS Form 780; OMB Control Number 0720-0005.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement.

    Number of Respondents: 60.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 60.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 20.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and record the professional qualifications of medical and peer reviewers utilized within TRICARE®. The form is included as an exhibit in an appeal or hearing case file as evidence of the reviewer's professional qualifications to review the medical documentation contained in the case file.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Stephanie Tatham.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Stephanie Tatham, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID 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.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00829 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) will hold a regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 11, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time. Members of the public should submit their comments in advance of the meeting to the meeting Point of Contact. Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Ocean Research Advisory Panel was unable to provide public notification of its meeting of January 11, 2017, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    ADDRESSES:

    This will be a teleconference. For access, connect to: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/822051381. The call-in number will be: (312) 757-3121, with access code: 822-051-381.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CDR Joel W. Feldmeier, Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone 703-696-5121.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The meeting will include discussions on ocean research, resource management, and other current issues in the ocean science and management communities.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. A.M. Nichols, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00812 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are available for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.

    The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 9,536,620 (Navy Case No. 200321): METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING THE RADIATION TOLERANCE OF FLOATING GATE MEMORIES// and Patent No. 9,535,562 (Navy Case No. 101979): COGNITIVE LOAD REDUCTION AND FIELD OF VIEW ENHANCING STANDARDIZED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI) OVERLAY GENERATING SYSTEM OR SYSTEMS THAT INCLUDE ELEMENTS THAT CORRELATE VARIOUS DEVICE, EVENT, OR OPERATION INPUTS WITH COMMON GUI OVERLAY GENERATION MODULES AND GROUP RELATED GUI ELEMENTS ACROSS OVERLAYS ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED METHODS.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, Email [email protected]

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. A.M. Nichols, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00813 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 94-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATE:

    Thursday, February 16, 2017.

    TIME:

    4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The public teleconference will be held by teleconference only. The teleconference number is: (267) 930-4000; participation code: 580-520-181.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Rova, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Rd, Germantown, MD 20874; telephone (301) 903-9096; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC), formerly the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), was established in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to provide advice on complex scientific, technical, and policy issues that arise in the planning, managing, and implementation of DOE's civilian nuclear energy research programs. The committee is composed of 19 individuals of diverse backgrounds selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues that pertain to nuclear energy.

    Purpose of the Meeting: Discussion and approval of the NEAC report “Assessment of Missions and Requirements for a New U.S. Test Reactor”.

    Tentative Agenda: Discussion and approval of report.

    Public Participation: Individuals and representatives of organizations are invited to listen to the meeting on February, 16, 2017. The draft report is posted on NEAC's Web site: https://energy.gov/ne/services/nuclear-energy-advisory-committee. Comments on the report can be sent to: [email protected] Comments are due by Tuesday, January 31, 2017.

    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available by contacting Mr. Rova at the address above or on the Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy Web site at http://energy.gov/ne/services/nuclear-energy-advisory-committee.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 2017.

    LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00865 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602; FRL-9958-45-OAR] Denial of Reconsideration and Administrative Stay of the Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Compliance Times for Electric Utility Generating Units AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final action denying petitions for reconsideration and petitions for administrative stay.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received 38 petitions for reconsideration of the final Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015. The agency is providing notice that it denied the petitions for reconsideration except to the extent they raise topics concerning biomass and waste-to-energy, and it is deferring action on the petitions to the extent they raised those topics. The EPA also received 22 petitions for an administrative stay of this rule. The agency is providing notice that it denied these petitions. The basis for the EPA's actions is set out fully in letters sent to the petitioners and a separate memorandum available in the rulemaking docket.

    DATES:

    The EPA took final action to deny the petitions for reconsideration except to the extent they raised certain topics, and to deny petitions for an administrative stay, on January 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Goffman, Office of Air and Radiation (6101A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202)564-7400, facsimile number (202) 564-1408; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

    A copy of this Federal Register notice, the petitions for reconsideration, the petitions for an administrative stay, the letters taking action on those petitions, and the separate memorandum describing the full basis for those actions will be available in the rulemaking docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602). In addition, following signature, an electronic copy of these documents will be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) at the following address: https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan.

    II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue over petitions for review of final EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that “a petition for review of action of the Administrator in promulgating . . . any standard of performance or requirement under section [111] of [the CAA],” or any other “nationally applicable” final action, “may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.”

    The EPA has determined that its actions denying the petitions for reconsideration or for an administrative stay are nationally applicable for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) because the action directly affects the Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Compliance Times for Electric Utility Generating Units, which are nationally applicable CAA section 111 standards. Thus, any petitions for review of the EPA's decision to deny petitioners' requests for reconsideration or for an administrative stay must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by March 20, 2017.

    III. Background and Summary of the Action

    On October 23, 2015, pursuant to section 111 of the CAA, the EPA published the final rule titled “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.” 80 FR 64661. Following promulgation of the final emission guidelines, the Administrator received petitions for reconsideration of certain provisions of the final rule pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) and petitions for an administrative stay under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 705 and CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).

    CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) requires the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration of a rule if a party raising an objection to the rule “can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the public comment period] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” The requirement to convene a proceeding to reconsider a rule is thus based on the petitioner demonstrating to the EPA both: (1) That it was impracticable to raise the objection during the comment period, or that the grounds for such objection arose after the comment period, but within the time specified for judicial review (i.e., within 60 days after publication of the final rulemaking notice in the Federal Register, see CAA section 307(b)(1)); and (2) that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.

    The EPA received 38 petitions for reconsideration of the CAA section 111(d) greenhouse gas emission guidelines from the following entities: Alabama Department of Environmental Management (DEM); Ameren Corporation (Ameren); American Electric Power System (AEP); Arkansas Office of the Attorney General (Arkansas); Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin); Biogenic CO2 Coalition; Biomass Power Association (BPA), the Energy Recovery Council (ERC) and the Local Government Coalition for Renewable Energy (LGCRE); Commonwealth of Kentucky (Kentucky); Dairyland Power Cooperative, Madison Gas and Electric Company, We Energies, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and WPPI Energy (Wisconsin utilities); Denbury Onshore, LLC (Denbury); Energy and Environment Legal Institute; ERC; Entergy; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative, and Minnkota Power Cooperative; Intermountain Power Agency; Kansas Department of Health and Environment (DHE); LGCRE; Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities Company (KU); Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); Mississippi Public Service Commission (PSC); National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO); National Association of Home Builders; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA); Newmont Nevada Energy Investment LLC and Newmont USA Limited (Newmont); NorthWestern Energy; Oglethorpe Power Corporation (Oglethorpe); Prairie State Generating Company, LLC (Prairie State); Southern Company; State of Montana Office of the Attorney General (Montana); State of Nebraska Office of the Attorney General and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (Nebraska); State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); State of North Dakota Office of the Attorney General (North Dakota); State of Texas Office of the Attorney General, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Public Utility Commission of Texas, and the Railroad Commission of Texas (Texas); State of West Virginia Office of the Attorney General (West Virginia); State of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Wisconsin); State of Wyoming (Wyoming); Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG); and Westar Energy Incorporated (Westar Energy).

    In letters to petitioners, the EPA denied 31 of the petitions for reconsideration in full, and denied Kentucky's and Oglethorpe's petition for reconsideration except to the extent they raised the topic of biomass, as not satisfying one or both of the statutory conditions for compelled reconsideration. The EPA is deferring action on the petitions to the extent they cover the topics of biomass and waste-to-energy.1 The EPA is deferring with respect to biomass pending our further on-going consideration of the underlying issue of whether and how to account for biomass when co-firing with fossil fuels.

    1 These topics were included in the petitions of the Biogenic CO2 Coalition, Biomass Power Association, Kentucky, ERC, LGCRE, Oglethorpe, and NAFO.

    We discuss each of the topics in the petitions we denied and the basis for those denials in a separate, docketed memorandum titled “Basis for Denial of Petitions to Reconsider and Petitions to Stay the CAA Section 111(d) Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Compliance Times for Electric Utility Generating Units.” For reasons set out in the memorandum, the EPA denied the petitions for reconsideration for the following petitioners: Alabama DEM; Ameren; AEP; Arkansas; Basin; Kentucky 2 ; Wisconsin utilities; Denbury; Energy and Environment Legal Institute; Entergy; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative, and Minnkota Power Cooperative; Intermountain Power Agency; Kansas DHE; LG&E and KU; Mississippi DEQ; Mississippi PSC; National Association of Home Builders; NRECA; Newmont; NorthWestern Energy; Oglethorpe; Prairie State; Southern Company; Montana; Nebraska; New Jersey DEP; North Dakota; Texas; West Virginia; Wisconsin; Wyoming; UARG; and Westar Energy.

    2 As noted, the EPA is deferring action on Kentucky's and Oglethorpe's petitions to the extent they raise the topic of biomass.

    APA section 705 provides, “When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. 705. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the EPA may stay the effectiveness of a rule while it is being reconsidered “for a period not to exceed three months.”

    The EPA received 22 petitions for an administrative stay under APA section 705 and CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).

    The EPA received petitions from West Virginia and a group of 15 other states; Ameren; Basin; Business Associations; Denbury; Kansas DHE; Mississippi DEQ; Mississippi PSC; Montana; NAFO; National Mining Association; Nebraska; New Jersey DEP; North Dakota; NorthWestern Energy; Peabody Energy Corporation; Prairie State; Texas; UARG; and Westar Energy.

    The EPA responded to several of these petitions by letters stating that we were not taking action on them in light of the stay imposed on the rule by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 7, 2016. Subsequently, the EPA sent letters to all the petitioners denying each of these petitions for the reasons explained in the memorandum referred to above, “Basis for Denial of Petitions to Reconsider and Petitions to Stay the CAA Section 111(d) Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Compliance Times for Electric Utility Generating Units.”

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00941 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0719; FRL-9958-39-OGC] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health (collectively “Plaintiffs”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 3:16-cv-03796-VC (N.D. Cal.). On July 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this lawsuit alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under the CAA to complete periodic reviews of the air quality criteria and the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for sulfur oxides (“SOX”) and the primary NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen (“NOX”), to make such revisions to those air quality criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate, and to promulgate such new NAAQS as may be appropriate. The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to take certain, specified actions.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0719, online at www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). If you would like to submit a comment using a different submission method, please contact the person listed 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:

    Melina Williams, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-3406; fax number: (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    Under section 109(d) of the CAA, EPA is required to periodically review air quality criteria and NAAQS and to make such revisions as may be appropriate. The proposed consent decree addresses a lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs alleging that EPA failed to timely complete certain periodic reviews for NOX and SOX by the deadline set forth in the CAA. The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to take certain, specified actions in the periodic reviews, and if appropriate, revisions of the air quality criteria addressing human health effects of SOX, and the primary NAAQS for NOX and SOX. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would: (1) Sign a notice setting forth its proposed decision concerning its review of the primary NAAQS for NOX no later than July 14, 2017; (2) sign a notice setting forth its final decision concerning its review of the primary NAAQS for NOX no later than April 6, 2018; (3) issue a final Integrated Science Assessment (a document containing air quality criteria) addressing human health effects of SOX no later than December 14, 2017; (4) sign a notice setting forth its proposed decision concerning its review of the primary NAAQS for SOX no later than May 25, 2018; and (5) sign a notice setting forth its final decision concerning its review of the primary NAAQS for SOX no later than January 28, 2019. See the proposed consent decree for additional details.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree A. How can I get a copy of the proposed consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0719) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: January 6, 2017. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00942 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017; FRL9958-38-OAR] California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Amendments to On-Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicle In-Use Compliance Program, Amendments to 2007 and Subsequent Model Year On-Highway Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, and Amendments to Truck Requirements; Notice of Decision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is granting the California Air Resources Board's (“CARB's”) request for a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption for its On-Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicle In-Use Compliance program (“In-Use Regulation”). EPA is also confirming that CARB's amendments to its 2007 and Subsequent Model Year On-Highway Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles regulation (“2007 Amendments”) and CARB's amendments to its Truck Idling requirements (“Truck Idling Amendments”) are within the scope of previous waivers issued by EPA. The In-Use Regulation establishes a manufacturer-run in-use compliance program using portable emission measurement systems (“PEMS”). The 2007 Amendments specify the NOX emission standard for heavy- and medium-duty diesel engines to two significant figures and provide manufacturers the option to certify chassis-certified diesel vehicles within the phase-in compliance provisions of the 2007 and Subsequent Model Year On-Highway Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles regulation. The Truck Idling Amendments exempt armored cars and workover rigs (a mobile self-propelled rig used to perform remedial operations on producing oil or gas wells to restore or increase well production) from the new engine requirements of the preexisting California Truck Idling regulation. This decision is issued under the authority of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”).

    DATES:

    Petitions for review must be filed by March 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017. All documents relied upon in making this decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The email address for the Air and Radiation Docket is: [email protected], the telephone number is (202) 566-1742, and the fax number is (202) 566-9744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through the federal government's electronic public docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017 in the “Enter Keyword or ID” fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (“CBI”) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (“OTAQ”) maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited in today's notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Dickinson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Telephone: (202) 343-9256. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On August 19, 2005, EPA granted California a waiver of preemption pursuant to section 209(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), for CARB's amendments to its heavy-duty diesel engine standards for 2007 and subsequent model year (MY) vehicles and engines and related test procedures, including not-to-exceed (“NTE”) and supplemental steady-state tests to determine compliance with applicable standards (“2007 California HDDE standards”).1 Those standards apply to all heavy-duty diesel engines, and align California's standards and test procedures with corresponding federal standards and test procedures. In 2010 EPA granted California a waiver of preemption for CARB's adoption of amendments applicable to 2008 and subsequent MY heavy-duty Otto-cycle engines.2 In 2005, CARB adopted truck idling requirements, including an element whereby new California-certified 2008 and subsequent MY on-road diesel engines in trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (“GVWR”) greater than 14,000 pounds were required to be equipped with a system that automatically shuts down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling (“Truck Idling regulation”). In lieu of the automatic engine shutdown systems, manufacturers are allowed to optionally certify engines to a NOX idling emission standard. EPA granted a waiver for the Truck Idling regulation in 2012.3

    1 70 FR 50322 (August 26, 2005).

    2 75 FR 70237 (November 17, 2010).

    3 77 FR 9239 (February 16, 2012).

    CARB's In-Use Regulation establishes a manufacturer-run in-use compliance program that is largely identical to EPA's previously adopted heavy-duty in-use testing program (“HDIUT program”) originally adopted in 2005.4 The regulation applies to 2007 and subsequent MY engine-dynamometer certified heavy-duty diesel engines installed in a motor vehicle with GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds. CARB's initial In-Use Regulation, adopted in 2006, included requirements for manufacturers screening test vehicles with portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) and testing the vehicles by operating them over typical driving routes, and under the same vehicle loads and environmental conditions that the vehicles routinely encounter. The in-use compliance program is comprised of two phases. The first phase, Phase 1, involves testing a designated engine family for conformity with the applicable NTE requirements. In the second phase, if the engine family does not pass the Phase 1 requirements then testing, under more narrowly defined test conditions, may be required to target specific noncomplying operating conditions. The initial regulation incorporated temporary measurement allowances when testing for compliance using PEMS. In 2007, CARB amended the In-Use Regulation to set forth new measurement allowances for gaseous emissions.5 In 2011, CARB approved additional amendments to the In-Use Requirements to establish a new particulate matter (“PM”) measurement allowance. EPA similarly amended its federal HDIUT program in 2010 to incorporate this same measurement allowance.6

    4 70 FR 34594 (June 14, 2005).

    5See the California Air Resources Board's Waiver Request Support Document (“Waiver Support Document”), dated December 31, 2015 at EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017-0018, at 7-8.

    6 Waiver Support Document at 9, citing 75 FR 68448 (November 8, 2010).

    CARB initially adopted the 2007 California HDDE standards in 2001 to fully align California's NOX emission standards for 2007 and subsequent MY HDDEs and medium-duty diesel engines (“MDDEs”) certified to ultra-low-emission vehicle (“ULEV”) standards to the corresponding federal NOX emission standard of 0.20 gram per brake-horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) (two significant figures). CARB also established a more stringent NOX standard for MDDEs certified to optional ultra-low-emission vehicle (“SULEV”) emission standards of 0.10 g/bhp-hr). CARB's 2007 Amendments clarify that the NOX ULEV emission standard for HDDEs is the same as the federal NOX emission standard of 0.20 g/bhp-hr and amended the NOX SULEV standard to 0.10 g/bhp-hr (CARB had inadvertently specified these NOX emission standards to only one significant figure (0.2 and 0.1 g/bhp-hr r, respectively)). CARB had also inadvertently failed to include a provision that provided manufacturers the option to include chassis-certified 2007 through 2009 MY heavy-duty diesel vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR within the phase-in compliance provision of the 2007 HDDE standards. The 2007 Amendments incorporate this optional provision. In addition, the 2007 Amendments incorporate the flexibility provided by EPA in 2006, whereby manufacturers may apply multiplicative deterioration factors if, based on good engineering judgment, multiplicative deterioration factors are more appropriate for a particular engine family (as opposed to an adjustment by the addition of appropriate deterioration factors).7

    7Id. at 11, citing 71 FR 51481 (August 30, 2006).

    In 2008 CARB adopted amendments to the new engine requirements within the Truck Idling regulation to address specific issues regarding armored cars and workover rigs. Specifically, the Truck Idling Amendments provide that new 2008 and subsequent MY heavy-duty diesel engines used in armored cars and workover rigs are exempt from the new engine idling requirements. In addition, in 2011 CARB provided additional regulatory clarification of the exemption.8

    8Id.

    By letter dated January 27, 2016, CARB submitted to EPA a request for a waiver of the preemption found at section 209(a) of Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7543(a), for the In-Use Regulation. CARB's submission provided analysis and evidence to support its finding that the In-Use Regulation satisfies the CAA section 209(b) criteria and that a waiver of preemption should be granted. CARB's request also sought confirmation that its 2007 Amendments and the Truck Idling Amendments are within the scope of waivers of preemption previously granted by EPA.9

    9Id.

    II. Principles Governing This Review A. Scope of Review

    Section 209(a) of the CAA provides:

    No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.10

    10 CAA § 209(a). 42 U.S.C. 7543(a).

    Section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the Administrator, after an opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the state determines that its state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.11 However, no such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that: (A) The protectiveness determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious; (B) the state does not need such state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (C) such state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.12

    11 CAA § 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1). California is the only state that meets section 209(b)(1)'s requirement for obtaining a waiver. See S. Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).

    12 CAA § 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1).

    Key principles governing this review are that EPA should limit its inquiry to the specific findings identified in section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and that EPA will give substantial deference to the policy judgments California has made in adopting its regulations. In previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress intended the Agency's review of California's decision-making to be narrow. EPA has rejected arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for denying a waiver:

    The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further reduction in air pollution in California.13

    13 “Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to California State Standards,” 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). Note that the more stringent standard expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the 1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California must determine that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.

    This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.14 “[T]he statute does not provide for any probing substantive review of the California standards by federal officials.” Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 606 F.2d 1293, 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Thus, EPA's consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning a waiver decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those questions that may be considered under section 209(b)(1).

    14See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (“MEMA I”).

    B. Within-the-Scope Determinations

    If California amends regulations that have been previously authorized by EPA, California may ask EPA to determine that the amendments are within the scope of the earlier authorization. A within-the-scope determination for such amendments is permissible without a full authorization review if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 209 of the Act, following the same criteria discussed above in the context of full authorizations. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any new issues affecting EPA's prior waiver or authorization decisions.15

    15See “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Amendments Within the Scope of Previous Waiver of Federal Preemption,” 46 FR 36742 (July 15, 1981).

    C. Burden and Standard of Proof

    As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made clear in MEMA I, opponents of a waiver request by California bear the burden of showing that the statutory criteria for a denial of the request have been met:

    [T]he language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that California's regulations, and California's determinations that they must comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request should be denied.16

    16MEMA I, note 19, at 1121.

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: “here, too, if the Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' ” 17 Therefore, the Administrator's burden is to act “reasonably.” 18

    17Id. at 1126.

    18Id. at 1126.

    With regard to the standard of proof, the court in MEMA I explained that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

    [. . .]consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.19

    19Id. at 1122.

    In that decision, the court considered the standards of proof under section 209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an “accompanying enforcement procedure.” Those findings involve: (1) Whether the enforcement procedures impact California's prior protectiveness determination for the associated standards, and (2) whether the procedures are consistent with section 202(a). The principles set forth by the court are similarly applicable to an EPA review of a request for a waiver of preemption for a standard. The court instructed that “the standard of proof must take account of the nature of the risk of error involved in any given decision, and it therefore varies with the finding involved. We need not decide how this standard operates in every waiver decision.” 20

    20Id.

    With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be “clear and compelling evidence” to show that proposed enforcement procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.21 The court noted that this standard of proof also accords with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare.22

    21Id.

    22Id.

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof under section 209 concerning a waiver request for “standards,” as compared to a waiver request for accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis would not apply with equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: “[E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation—the existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are technologically feasible—Congress intended that the standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.” 23

    23See, e.g., “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption,” 40 FR 23102 (May 28, 1975), at 23103.

    D. Deference to California

    In previous waiver decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on specifically listed criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess state policy choices. As the Agency explained in one prior waiver decision:

    It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator. . . . Since a balancing of risks and costs against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I believe I am required to give very substantial deference to California's judgments on this score.24

    24 40 FR 23102, 23103-04 (May 28, 1975).

    Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on “ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy” to California's judgment.25 This interpretation is supported by relevant discussion in the House Committee Report for the 1977 amendments to the CAA. Congress had the opportunity through the 1977 amendments to restrict the preexisting waiver provision, but elected instead to expand California's flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission controls. The report explains that the amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the preexisting California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision, that is, to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.26

    25 40 FR 23102, 23104 (May 28, 1975); 58 FR 4166 (January 13, 1993).

    26MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301-02 (1977)).

    E. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's Request

    On August 9, 2016, EPA published a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment on California's waiver request.27 In that notice, EPA requested comments on whether the 2007 Amendments and the Truck Idling Amendments, each individually assessed, should be considered under the within-the-scope analysis or whether they should be considered under the full waiver criteria. For the In-Use Regulation, and to the degree the 2007 Amendments or the Truck Idling Amendments should not be considered under the within-the-scope criteria, EPA sought comment under the following three criteria: Whether (a) California's determination that its motor vehicle emissions standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

    27 81 FR 52678 (August 9, 2016).

    EPA received no comments and no requests for a public hearing. Consequently, EPA did not hold a public hearing.

    III. Discussion A. Within-the-Scope Analysis

    EPA initially evaluates California's 2007 Amendments and Truck Idling Amendments by application of our traditional within-the-scope analysis, as CARB requested. If we determine that CARB's request does not meet the requirements for a within-the-scope determination, we then evaluate the request based on a full authorization analysis. In determining whether amendments can be viewed as within the scope of previous waivers, EPA looks at whether CARB's revision is either limited to minor technical amendments to previously waived regulations or modifying regulations in order to provide additional compliance flexibility without significantly reducing the overall stringency of previously waived regulations. The amendments at issue in this request provide regulatory clarity and corrections, and provide limited exemptions in order to provide for compliance flexibility

    EPA sought comment on a range of issues, including those applicable to a within-the-scope analysis as well as those applicable to a full authorization analysis. No party submitted a comment that California's 2007 Amendments or Truck Idling Amendments require a full authorization analysis. Given the lack of comments on this issue, and EPA's assessment of the nature of the amendments, I will evaluate California's 2007 amendments and Truck Idling Amendments by application of the traditional within-the-scope analysis, as CARB requested.

    As noted above, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within the scope of a previously granted waiver of preemption if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations do not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations do not affect consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations do not raise any “new issues” affecting EPA's prior authorizations.

    B. Full Authorization Analysis

    CARB's waiver request also included the In-Use Regulation. EPA must grant a waiver for the In-Use Regulation unless the Administrator finds: (1) California's determination that its standards will be, in the aggregate, as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with this section.

    EPA's evaluation of the 2007 Amendments, the Truck Idling Amendments, and the In-use Regulation is set forth below. Because of the similarity of the within-the-scope criteria and the full waiver criteria, a discussion of all three sets of respective amendments take place within each waiver criterion. To the extent that the criteria are applied uniquely, or that additional criteria apply under either the within-the-scope analysis or the full waiver analysis, such application is also addressed below.

    C. Whether California's Protectiveness Determination Was Arbitrary and Capricious

    As stated in the background, section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Act sets forth the first of the three criteria governing a new waiver request—whether California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its motor vehicle emissions standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to deny a waiver if the Administrator finds that California's protectiveness determination was arbitrary and capricious. However, a finding that California's determination was arbitrary and capricious must be based upon clear and convincing evidence that California's finding was unreasonable.28

    CARB notes that in its initial adoption and amendments to the In-Use Regulation in 2006, 2007, and 2011, the CARB Board approved Resolutions 06-27, 07-56 and 11-19 in which it declared:

    Be it further resolved that the Board hereby determines that the regulations adopted herein will not cause California motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of the public health and welfare than applicable federal standards.29

    28MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122, 1124 (“Once California has come forward with a finding that the procedures it seeks to adopt will not undermine the protectiveness of its standards, parties opposing the waiver request must show that this finding is unreasonable.”); see also 78 FR 2112, at 2121 (January. 9, 2013).

    29 Waiver Support Document at 17. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017-0027, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017-0047, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0017-0056.

    CARB also notes that EPA has previously granted California a waiver for California's 2007 California HDDE standards (which included the NTE test procedures), and the addition of the In-Use Regulation will help ensure that the emission control systems on HDDEs are properly designed and sufficiently durable to ensure compliance with the emission requirements during their useful life. CARB further noted that the In-Use Regulation provisions are “essentially identical to the requirements of EPA's corresponding HDIUT program.30 CARB also notes that the 2007 Amendments in no way undermine the stringency of the underlying exhaust emission standards or the associated test procedures (which is the criterion under the within-the-scope analysis), but instead ensure that California's standards remain as, or more protective than, applicable federal standards.31 Similarly, CARB notes that with regard to the Truck Idling Amendments that EPA's regulations do not require new heavy-duty diesel engines to be equipped with idling shutdown systems or to optionally comply with NOX idling emission standards.32

    30Id.

    31Id. at 21.

    32Id. at 24, citing Resolution 11-19.

    As it is clear that California's standards are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, and that no evidence is in the record suggesting otherwise (and EPA is not otherwise aware of any information), I find that California's respective protectiveness determinations are not arbitrary and capricious for purposes of the In-Use Regulation, the 2007 Amendments, and the Truck Idling Amendments.

    D. Whether the Standards Are Necessary To Meet Compelling and Extraordinary Conditions

    Section 209(b)(1)(B) instructs that EPA cannot grant a waiver if the Agency finds that California “does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” EPA's inquiry under this second criterion has traditionally been to determine whether California needs its own motor vehicle emission control program (i.e., set of standards) to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and not whether the specific standards that are the subject of the waiver request are necessary to meet such conditions.33 In recent waiver actions, EPA again examined the language of section 209(b)(1)(B) and reiterated this longstanding traditional interpretation as the better approach for analyzing the need for “such State standards” to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” 34

    33See California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles,” 74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009), at 32761; see also “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption Notice of Decision,” 49 FR 18887 (May 3, 1984), at 18889-18890.

    34See 78 FR 2112, at 2125-26 (Jan. 9, 2013) (“EPA does not look at whether the specific standards at issue are needed to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions related to that air pollutant.”; see also EPA's July 9, 2009 GHG Waiver Decision wherein EPA rejected the suggested interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B) as requiring a review of the specific need for California's new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards as opposed to the traditional interpretation (need for the motor vehicle emission program as a whole) applied to local or regional air pollution problems. See also 79 FR 46256, 46261 (August 7, 2014).

    In conjunction with the initial adoption and subsequent amendments of the In-Use Regulation in 2006, 2007, and 2011, respectively (see Resolutions 06-27, 07-56, and 11-19 noted above), the CARB's Board confirmed California's longstanding position that California continues to need its own motor vehicle emission program to meet serious air pollution problems. CARB notes that the geographical and climatic conditions and the tremendous growth in vehicle population and use that moved Congress to authorize California to establish separate vehicle standards in 1967 still exist today.35 “Nothing in these conditions has changed to warrant a change in EPA's confirmation, and therefore there can be no doubt of the continuing existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying California's need for its own motor vehicle emissions control program.” 36

    35 Waiver Support Request Support Document at 18.

    36Id.

    There has been no evidence submitted to indicate that California's compelling and extraordinary conditions do not continue to exist. California, particularly in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins, continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the nation, and many areas in California continue to be in non-attainment with national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter and ozone.37 As California has previously stated, “nothing in [California's unique geographic and climatic] conditions has changed to warrant a change in this determination.” 38

    37 74 FR 32744, 32762-63 (July 8, 2009), 76 FR 77515, 77518 (December 13, 2011), 81 FR 95982 (December 29, 2016). EPA continually evaluates the air quality conditions in the United States, including California. California continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the country and continues to be in nonattainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter and ozone, see “Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)” at EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0751.

    38Id.

    Based on the record before us, including EPA's prior waiver decisions, I am unable to identify any change in circumstances or evidence to suggest that the conditions that Congress identified as giving rise to serious air quality problems in California no longer exist. Therefore, EPA cannot find that California does not need its state standards, including its In-Use Regulation, to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions in California.

    E. Consistency With Section 202(a)

    For the third and final criterion, EPA evaluates the program for consistency with section 202(a) of the CAA. Under section 209(b)(1)(C) of the CAA, EPA must deny California's waiver request if EPA finds that California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a). Section 202(a) requires that regulations “shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the relevant technology, considering the cost of compliance within that time.”

    EPA has previously stated that the determination is limited to whether those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with the federal test procedure. Infeasibility would be shown here by demonstrating that there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet the In-Use Amendments, the 2007 Amendments, or the Truck Idling Amendments that are the subject of the waiver request, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time.39 California's accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the federal and California test procedures conflicted, i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal test requirements with the same test vehicle.40

    39See, e.g., 38 FR 30136 (November 1, 1973) and 40 FR 30311 (July 18, 1975).

    40See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).

    Regarding test procedure conflict, CARB notes both EPA and CARB utilize essentially identical test procedures in certifying 2007 and subsequent MY heavy-duty engines and that the 2007 Amendments also do not preclude manufacturers from conducting one set of tests on a heavy-duty engines or vehicle to determine compliance with both the California and federal requirements.41 For the reasons set forth above, and because there is no evidence in the record or other information that EPA is aware of, I cannot find that CARB's In-Use Compliance Regulation, 2007 Amendments, and Truck Idling Amendments are inconsistent with section 202(a) based upon test procedure inconsistency.

    41Id. at 20, 22.

    In addition, EPA did not receive any comments arguing that the CARB's In-Use Regulation, 2007 Amendments, and Truck Idling Amendments were technologically infeasible or that the cost of compliance would be excessive, such that California's standards might be inconsistent with section 202(a).42 In EPA's review of CARB's In-Use Regulation, I find that CARB's statements about the capability of PEMS technology to measure gaseous pollutants as well as PM emissions is accurate.43 With regard to the 2007 Amendments, I find that the amendments do not raise any new issues regarding technological feasibility given that the amendments regarding how the NOX standard is expressed is a regulatory clarification and the amendment regarding the new option for certain chassis-certified 2007 through 2009 model year heavy-duty vehicles provides additional compliance flexibility. Similarly, the Truck Idling Amendments merely provide compliance flexibility to a previously waived program by setting forth limited compliance exemptions (i.e., the exemptions for armored vehicles and workover rigs).

    42See, e.g., 78 FR 2134 (January 9, 2013), 47 FR 7306, 7309 (February 18, 1982), 43 FR 25735 (June 17, 1978), and 46 FR 26371, 26373 (May 12, 1981).

    43 Waiver Support Document at 19 (CARB explains that several PEMS capable of measuring gaseous emissions are commercially available and that the further development needed (at the time of CARB's initial adoption of the In-Use Regulation) for PM emissions monitoring by PEMS has been resolved.

    I therefore cannot find that California standards, which include the CARB's In-Use Regulation, 2007 Amendments, and Truck Idling Amendments are inconsistent with section 202(a).

    F. New Issues

    EPA has stated in the past that if California promulgates amendments that raise new issues affecting previously granted waivers, we would not confirm that those amendments are within the scope of previous waivers.44 I do not believe that either the 2007 Amendments or the Truck Idling Amendments raise any new issues with respect to our prior waivers governing their underlying regulations. Moreover, EPA did not receive any comments that CARB's 2007 Amendments or Truck Idling Amendments raised new issues affecting the previously granted waivers. Therefore, I cannot find that CARB's 2007 Amendments and Truck Idling Amendments raise new issues and consequently, cannot deny CARB's within-the-scope requests based on this criterion.

    44See, e.g., 78 FR 38970 (June 28, 2013), 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010), and 70 FR 22034 (April 28, 2005).

    IV. Decision

    After evaluating CARB's In-Use Regulation and CARB's submissions for EPA review, I am hereby granting a waiver for the In-Use Regulation. After evaluating CARB's 2007 Amendments and Truck Idling Amendments and CARB's submissions for EPA review, I am hereby confirming that such amendments are within the scope of prior EPA waivers.

    This decision will affect persons in California and those manufacturers and/or owners/operators nationwide who must comply with California's requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt California's standards for which a section 209(b) waiver has been granted under section 177 of the Act if certain criteria are met, this decision would also affect those states and those persons in such states. For these reasons, EPA determines and finds that this is a final action of national applicability, and also a final action of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by March 20, 2017. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past waiver and authorization decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.

    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.

    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: January 9, 2017. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00940 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0989] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 20, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email to [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0989.

    Title: Sections 63.01, 63.03, 63.04, Procedures for Applicants Requiring Section 214 Authorization for Domestic Interstate Transmission Lines Acquired Through Corporate Control.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents of Responses: 92 respondents; 92 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1.5-10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 152, 154(i)-(j), 201, 214, and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 861 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $98,175.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality. The FCC is not requiring applicants to submit confidential information to the Commission. If applicants want to request confidential treatment of the documents they submit to Commission, they may do so under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: A Report and Order, FCC 02-78, adopted and released in March 2002 (Order), set forth the procedures for common carriers requiring authorization under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to acquire domestic interstate transmission lines through a transfer of control. Under section 214 of the Act, carriers must obtain FCC approval before constructing, acquiring, or operating an interstate transmission line. Acquisitions involving interstate common carriers require affirmative action by the Commission before the acquisition can occur. This information collection contains filing procedures for domestic transfer of control applications under sections 63.03 and 63.04. The FCC filing fee amount for section 214 applications is currently $1,155 per application, which reflects an increase of the previous fee of $1,050 per application. (a) Sections 63.03 and 63.04 require domestic section 214 applications involving domestic transfers of control, at a minimum, should specify: (1) The name, address and telephone number of each applicant; (2) the government, state, or territory under the laws of which each corporate or partnership applicant is organized; (3) the name, title, post office address, and telephone number of the officer or contact point, such as legal counsel, to whom correspondence concerning the application is to be addressed; (4) the name, address, citizenship and principal business of any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns at least ten percent of the equity of the applicant, and the percentage of equity owned by each of those entities (to the nearest one percent); (5) certification pursuant to 47 CFR 1.2001 that no party to the application is subject to a denial of Federal benefits pursuant to section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988; (6) a description of the transaction; (7) a description of the geographic areas in which the transferor and transferee (and their affiliates) offer domestic telecommunications services, and what services are provided in each area; (8) a statement as to how the application fits into one or more of the presumptive streamlined categories in section 63.03 or why it is otherwise appropriate for streamlined treatment; (9) identification of all other Commission applications related to the same transaction; (10) a statement of whether the applicants are requesting special consideration because either party to the transaction is facing imminent business failure; (11) identification of any separately filed waiver request being sought in conjunction with the transaction; and (12) a statement showing how grant of the application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, including any additional information that may be necessary to show the effect of the proposed transaction on competition in domestic markets. Where an applicant wishes to file a joint international section 214 transfer of control application and domestic section 214 transfer of control application, the applicant must submit information that satisfies the requirements of 47 CFR 63.18. In the attachment to the international application, the applicant must submit information described in 47 CFR 63.04(a)(6). When the Commission, acting through the Wireline Competition Bureau, determines that applicants have submitted a complete application qualifying for streamlined treatment, it shall issue a public notice commencing a 30-day review period to consider whether the transaction serves the public interest, convenience and necessity. Parties will have 14 days to file any comments on the proposed transaction, and applicants will be given 7 days to respond. (b) Applicants are not required to file post-consummation notices of pro forma transactions, except that a post transaction notice must be filed with the Commission within 30 days of a pro forma transfer to a bankruptcy trustee or a debtor-in-possession. The notification can be in the form of a letter (in duplicate to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission). The letter or other form of notification must also contain the information listed in sections (a)(1). A single letter may be filed for more than one such transfer of control. The information will be used by the Commission to ensure that applicants comply with the requirements of 47 U.S.C. 214.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00849 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0881] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 20, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0881.

    Title: Section 95.861, Interference.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 175 respondents; 175 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement, and on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and 157, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 175 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $43,700.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 Section 95.861(c) require that licensees in the 218-219 MHz service must provide a copy of its plan to every TV Channel 13 station whose Grade B predicted contour overlaps the licensed service area as required by § 95.815(a) of the Commission's rules. This plan must include an analysis of the co- and adjacent channel interference potential of proposed systems in the 218-219 MHz service, identify methods being used to minimize interference, and show how the proposed systems will meet the service requirements set forth in § 95.831 of the Commission's rules. This plan must be sent to the TV Channel 13 licensee(s) within 10 days from the date the 218-219 MHz service licensee submits the plan to the Commission. Updates to this plan must be sent to the TV Channel 13 licensee(s) within 10 days from the date that such updates are filed with the Commission pursuant to § 95.815.

    The information collection requirements contained in 47 Section 95.861(e) require that each 218-219 MHz service licensee investigate and eliminate harmful interference to television broadcasting and reception, from its component cell transmitter stations (CTSs) and response transmitter units (RTUs) within 30 days of the time it is notified in writing, by either an affected television station, an affected viewer, or the Commission, of an interference complaint.

    This information will be used to monitor the co- and adjacent channel interference potential of proposed systems in the 218-219 MHz service, and to identify methods being used to minimize interference, as well as to show how the proposed systems will meet the service requirements set forth in § 95.831 of the Commission's rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00883 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-1126] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before February 16, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the Supplementary Information section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1126.

    Title: Testing and Logging Requirements for Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA).

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 80 Participating CMS Providers; 451,600 Responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.000694 hours (2.5 seconds) to generate each alert log; 2 hours to respond to each request for alert log data or information about geo-targeting

    Frequency of Response: Monthly and on occasion reporting requirements and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) and (o), 301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606 and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act.

    Total Annual Burden: 125,390 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Participating CMS Providers shall make available upon request to the Commission and FEMA, and to emergency management agencies that offer confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided in the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) their alert logs and information about their approach to geo-targeting insofar as the information pertains to alerts initiated by that emergency management agency.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission adopted revisions to Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) rules to take advantage of the significant technological changes and improvements experienced by the mobile wireless industry since the passage of the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, and deployment of Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to improve utility of WEA as a life-saving tool. This action will improve alert content, delivery and testing. With respect to information collection, in particular, the Commission adopted requirements for Participating CMS Providers to log the basic attributes of alerts they receive at their Alert Gateway, to maintain those logs for at least 12 months, and to make those logs available upon request to the Commission and FEMA, and to emergency management agencies that offer confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by federal FOIA. The Commission also required Participating CMS Providers to disclose information regarding their capabilities for geo-targeting Alert Messages upon request to such emergency management agencies insofar as it would pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency management agency.

    These recordkeeping and reporting requirements have potential to increase emergency managers' confidence that WEA will work as intended when needed. This increased confidence in system availability will encourage emergency managers that do not currently use WEA to become authorized. These reporting and recordkeeping requirements also help to ensure a fundamental component of system integrity. Alert logs are necessary to establish a baseline for system integrity against which future iterations of WEA can be evaluated. Without records that can be used to describe the quality of system integrity, and the most common causes of message transmission failure, it will be difficult to evaluate how any changes to WEA that we may adopt subsequent to this Report and Order affect system integrity.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00850 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0262 and 3060-0519] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before February 16, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the Supplementary Information section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0262.

    Title: Section 90.179, Shared Use of Radio Stations.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, non-for-profit institutions, and state, local and tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 43,000 respondents, 43,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .25 up to .75 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement and On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7).

    Total Annual Burden: 43,000 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission was directed by the United States Congress, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to dedicate 2.4 MHz of electromagnetic spectrum in the 746-806 MHz band for public safety services. Section 90.179 requires that Part 90 licensees that share use of their private land mobile radio facility on non-profit, cost-sharing basis to prepare and keep a written sharing agreement as part of the station records. Regardless of the method of sharing, an up-to-date list of persons who are sharing the station and the basis of their eligibility under Part 90 must be maintained. The requirement is necessary to identify users of the system should interference problems develop. This information is used by the Commission to investigate interference complaints and resolve interference and operational complaints that may arise among the users.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0519.

    Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 36,548 respondents; 147,434,797 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .004 hours (15 seconds) to 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Annual, on occasion and one-time reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the Information collection requirements is found in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), Public Law 102-243, December 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2394, which added Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, [47 U.S.C. 227] Restrictions on the Use of Telephone Equipment.

    Total Annual Burden: 666,598 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $2,745,000.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints and Inquiries.” As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/CGB-1 “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance”, in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48152) which became effective on September 24, 2014. A system of records for the do-not-call registry was created by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the Privacy Act. The FTC originally published a notice in the Federal Register describing the system. See 68 FR 37494, June 24, 2003. The FTC updated its system of records for the do-not-call registry in 2009. See 74 FR 17863, April 17, 2009.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

    Needs and Uses: The reporting requirements included under this OMB Control Number 3060-0519 enable the Commission to gather information regarding violations of Section 227 of the Communications Act, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (Do-Not-Call Act), and the Commission's implementing rules. If the information collection were not conducted, the Commission would be unable to track and enforce violations of Section 227 of the Communications Act, the Do-Not-Call Act, or the Commission's implementing rules. The Commission's implementing rules provide consumers with protections from many unwanted telephone solicitations and other commercial calls.

    The National Do-Not-Call Registry supplements the company-specific do-not-call rules for those consumers who wish to continue requesting that particular companies not call them. Any company that is asked by a consumer, including an existing customer, not to call again must honor that request for five (5) years.

    A provision of the Commission's rules, however, allows consumers to give specific companies permission to call them through an express written agreement. Nonprofit organizations are exempt from the Do-Not-Call Registry requirements.

    On September 21, 2004, the Commission released the Safe Harbor Order establishing a limited safe harbor in which callers will not be liable for placing autodialed and prerecorded message calls to numbers ported from a wireline service to a wireless service within the previous 15 days. The Commission also amended its existing National Do-Not-Call Registry safe harbor to require telemarketers to scrub their lists against the Registry every 31 days.

    On June 17, 2008, in accordance with the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, the Commission revised its rules to minimize the inconvenience to consumers of having to re-register their preferences not to receive telemarketing calls and to further the underlying goal of the National Do-Not-Call Registry to protect consumer privacy rights. The Commission released a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 08-147, amending the Commission's rules under the TCPA to require sellers and/or telemarketers to honor registrations with the National Do-Not-Call Registry so that registrations would not automatically expire based on the then-current five year registration period. Specifically, the Commission modified § 64.1200(c)(2) of its rules to require sellers and/or telemarketers to honor numbers registered on the Registry indefinitely or until the number is removed by the database administrator or the registration is cancelled by the consumer.

    On February 15, 2012, the Commission released a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 12-21, revising its rules to: (1) Require prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and for all prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines; (2) eliminate the established business relationship exception to the consent requirement for prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines; (3) require telemarketers to include an automated, interactive opt-out mechanism in all prerecorded telemarketing calls, to allow consumers more easily to opt out of future robocalls during a robocall itself; and (4) require telemarketers to comply with the 3% limit on abandoned calls during each calling campaign, in order to discourage intrusive calling campaigns. Finally, the Commission also exempted from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act requirements prerecorded calls to residential lines made by health care-related entities governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

    On August 11, 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 16-99, adopting rules to implement the TCPA amendments Congress enacted in Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. The Commission adopted rules implementing the law's exception from the prior express consent requirement for autodialed or prerecorded calls to wireless numbers “solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” and placing limits on the number and duration of autodialed or prerecorded calls to wireless numbers “to collect a debt owed or guaranteed by the United States.” Federal government callers and contractors making these calls on behalf of the federal government, without prior express consent of the called party, may call the person or persons responsible for paying the debt at one of three phone numbers specified in the rules, may call three times during a 30-day period, may call between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. local time at the debtor's location, may not call once the debtor requests that the calls cease, and must transfer the stop-call request to the new servicer if the debt servicer changes. Callers must notify debtors of their right to request that no further autodialed or prerecorded calls be made to the debtor for the life of the debt. Prerecorded calls may not exceed 60 seconds, excluding required disclosures and stop-calling instructions. Text messages are limited to 160 characters, including required disclosures, which may be sent in a separate text message. Calls may be made (1) once the debt is delinquent and, (2) if the debt is not yet delinquent, then after one of the following events and in the 30 days before one of the following events: The end of a grace, deferment, or forbearance period; expiration of an alternative payment arrangement; or occurrence of a similar time-sensitive event or deadline affecting the amount or timing of payments due.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00847 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1203 and 3060-0874] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before March 20, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1203.

    Title: Section 79.107 User Interfaces Provided by Digital Apparatus; Section 79.108 Video Programming Guides and Menus Provided by Navigation Devices; Section 79.110 Complaint Procedures for User Interfaces, Menus and Guides, and Activating Accessibility Features on Digital Apparatus and Navigation Devices.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,175 respondents and 516,982 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.0167 hours to 10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 716(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 617(g).

    Total Annual Burden: 24,043 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $70,500.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance.” As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/CGB-1 “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance,” in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48152) which became effective on September 24, 2014.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: The FCC completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy-Impact-Assessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

    Needs and Uses:

    On October 29, 2013, in document FCC 13-138, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the User Interfaces Accessibility Order), MB Docket Nos. 12-108, 12-107, published at 78 FR 77210, December 20, 2013, the Commission adopted rules implementing sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA related to making accessible the user interfaces, text menus and guides of digital apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming and navigation devices for the display or selection of multichannel video programming. On November 20, 2015, in document FCC 15-156, the Commission released a Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the Second User Interfaces Accessibility Order), MB Docket No. 12-108, published at 81 FR 5921, February 14, 2016, adopting additional rules to ensure that consumers are able to find out about what accessible devices and features are available from covered manufacturers and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) and how to use such devices and features. Collectively, these rules are codified at 47 CFR 79.107-79.110.

    Covered entities are required to comply with the rules and information collection requirements contained in the User Interfaces Accessibility Order and in the Second User Interfaces Accessibility Order beginning December 20, 2016.

    The Commission is submitting this revised information collection to transfer certain information collection burdens associated with this OMB Control Number 3060-1203 to OMB Control Number 3060-0874. This transfer is being made because the Commission's online consumer complaint portal, which is part of the information collection contained in OMB Control Number 3060-0874, is being revised to enable consumers to file complaints related to the Commission's user interfaces accessibility requirements through the Commission's online complaint portal.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0874.

    Title: Consumer Complaint Portal: General Complaints, Obscenity or Indecency Complaints, Complaints under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Slamming Complaints, RDAs and Communications Accessibility Complaints.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 335,979 respondents; 335,979 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes (.25 hours) to 30 minutes (.50 hours).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).

    Total Annual Burden: 84,006 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries and Requests for Dispute Assistance.” As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/CGB-1 “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance,” in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48152) which became effective on September 24, 2014.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: The FCC completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy-Impact-Assessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission consolidated all of the FCC informal consumer complaint intake into an online consumer complaint portal, which allows the Commission to better manage the collection of informal consumer complaints. Informal consumer complaints consist of informal consumer complaints, inquiries and comments. This revised information collection requests OMB approval for the addition of a layer of consumer reported complaint information related to the FCC's disability accessibility requirements for video programming digital apparatus and navigation device user interfaces (e.g., TV and set-top box controls, menus, and program guides). The information collection burdens associated with these complaints is being transferred from OMB Control Number 3060-1203 to OMB Control Number 3060-0874 to enable consumers to file complaints related to the Commission's user interfaces accessibility requirements through the Commission's online complaint portal.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00884 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0214] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before February 16, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0214.

    Title: Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527, Local Public Inspection Files; Sections 73.1212, 76.1701 and 73.1943, Political Files.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal government; Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 24,013 respondents; 63,364 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-52 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, Recordkeeping requirement, Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority that covers this information collection is contained in Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,087,626 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $27,363.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: The Commission prepared a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” that covers the PII contained in the broadcast station public inspection files located on the Commission's Web site. The Commission will revise appropriate privacy requirements as necessary to include any entities and information added to the online public file in this proceeding.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Most of the documents comprising the public file consist of materials that are not of a confidential nature. Respondents complying with the information collection requirements may request that the information they submit be withheld from disclosure. If confidentiality is requested, such requests will be processed in accordance with the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

    In addition, the Commission has adopted provisions that permit respondents subject to the information collection requirement for Shared Service Agreements to redact confidential or proprietary information from their disclosures.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements included under this OMB Control Number 3060-0214, requires commercial broadcast stations to maintain for public inspection a file containing the material set forth in 47 CFR 73.3526.

    This collection is being revised to reflect the burden associated with the Shared Service Agreement disclosure requirements adopted in the 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review (81 FR 76220, Nov. 1, 2016, FCC 16-107, rel. Aug. 25, 2016). The collection requires commercial television stations to place in their online public inspection file a copy of every Shared Service Agreement for the station (with the substance of oral agreements reported in writing), regardless of whether the agreement involves commercial television stations in the same market or in different markets, with confidential or proprietary information redacted where appropriate. For purposes of this collection, a Shared Service Agreement is any agreement or series of agreements in which (1) a station provides any station-related services, including, but not limited to, administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming support, to a station that is not directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the Commission's regulations; or (2) stations that are not directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the Commission's regulations collaborate to provide or enable the provision of station-related services, including, but not limited to, administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming support, to one or more of the collaborating stations. For purposes of this collection, the term “station” includes the licensee, including any subsidiaries and affiliates, and any other individual or entity with an attributable interest in the station.

    This information collection requirement will provide the Commission and the public with more comprehensive information about the prevalence and content of Shared Service Agreements between television stations, which will improve the Commission's and the public's ability to assess the potential impact of these agreements on the Commission's rules and policies.

    The information collection requirements contained under 47 CFR 73.1212, 73.3527, 73.1943 and 76.1701 are still a part of the information collection and remain unchanged since last approved by OMB.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00851 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10359—Community Central Bank, Mount Clemens, Michigan

    Notice Is Hereby Given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Community Central Bank, Mount Clemens, Michigan (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Community Central Bank on April 29, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00767 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission

    DATE and TIME:

    Thursday, January 12, 2017 at the conclusion of the 10:00 a.m. open meeting.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting was closed to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00967 Filed 1-12-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board or Federal Reserve) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision the following reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to amendments made by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, to the Bank Holding Company Act, the Federal Reserve Act, and related regulations. On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3884. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Board is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision the following reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to amendments made by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, to the Bank Holding Company Act, the Federal Reserve Act, and related regulations:

    • The mandatory Declarations to Become a Financial Holding Company (FHC) (FR 4010); 1

    1 Savings and Loan Holding Companies (SLHCs) were added to the FR 4010 as a result of Regulation LL. 12 CFR 238.65. (76 FR 56508) September 13, 2011.

    • The voluntary Requests for Determinations and Interpretations Regarding Activities Financial in Nature (FR 4011);

    • The mandatory Notices of Failure to Meet Capital or Management Requirements (FR 4012); 2

    2 SLHCs were added to the FR 4012 as a result of Regulation LL. 12 CFR 238.65. (76 FR 56508) September 13, 2011.

    • The mandatory Notices by State Member Banks to Invest in Financial Subsidiaries (FR 4017);

    • The mandatory Regulatory Relief Requests Associated with Merchant Banking Activities (FR 4019); and

    • The mandatory Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Merchant Banking Activities (FR 4023).

    These collections of information are event-generated and as such, there are no formal reporting forms associated with them. In each case, the type of information required to be filed is described in the Board's regulations.

    Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension, without revision, of the following information collection:

    Report Title: Certain Filings Related to the GLB Act.

    Agency Form Number: FR 4010, FR 4011, FR 4012, FR 4017, FR 4019, and FR 4023.

    OMB Control Number: 7100-0292.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent Type: BHCs, SLHCs, foreign banking organizations, and state member banks.

    Estimated Annual Reporting Hours: FR 4010: BHCs and SLHCs, 93 hours, Foreign banks, 4 hours; FR 4011: 50 hours; FR 4012: BHCs decertified as an FHC, 2 hours, FHCs back into compliance—BHC, 140 hours; FR 4017: 4 hours; FR 4019: Regulatory relief requests, 4 hours, Portfolio company notification, 2 hours; FR 4023: 1500 hours.

    Estimated Average Hours per Response: FR 4010: BHCs and SLHCs, 3 hours, Foreign banks, 4 hours; FR 4011: 10 hours; FR 4012: BHCs decertified as an FHC, 1 hour, FHCs back into compliance—BHC, 10 hours; FR 4017: 4 hours; FR 4019: Regulatory relief requests, 1 hour, Portfolio company notification, 1 hour; FR 4023: 50 hours.

    Number of respondents: FR 4010: BHCs and SLHCs, 31, Foreign banks, 1; FR 4011: 5; FR 4012: BHCs decertified as an FHC, 2, FHCs back into compliance—BHC, 14; FR 4017: 1; FR 4019: Regulatory relief requests, 4, Portfolio company notification 2; FR 4023: 30.

    Legal Authorization and Confidentiality:

    • FR 4010 is authorized by section 4(l)(1)(C) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843 (l)(1)(C)); section 10(c)(2)(H) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(2)(H)); section 8(a) of the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3106(a)); sections 225.82 and 225.91 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.82, 225.91; and section 238.65 of the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR 238.65)).

    • FR 4011 is authorized by section 4(j) and (k) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(j)-(k)), and sections 225.88 and 225.89 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.88, 225.89).

    • FR 4012 is authorized by section 4(l)(1) and 4(m) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(l)(1), (m)); section 10(c)(2)(H) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(2)(H)); section 8(a) of the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3106(a)); sections 225.83 and 225.93 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.83, 225.93); and section 238.66(b) of the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR 238.66(b)).

    • FR 4017 is authorized by section 9 of the FRA (12 U.S.C. 335), and section 208.76 of the Board's Regulation H (12 CFR 208.76).

    • FR 4019 is authorized by section 4(k)(7) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)(7)); sections 225.171(e)(3), 225.172(b)(4); and section 225.173(c)(2) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.171(e)(3), 225.172(b)(4), 225.173(c)(2)).

    • FR 4023 is authorized by section 4(k)(7) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)(7)), and sections 225.171(e)(4) and 225.175 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.171(e)(4), 225.175).

    The obligation to respond to the FR 4011 is voluntary (for requests to determine that an activity is financial in nature or to issue an advisory opinion that an activity is within the scope of an activity previously determined to be financial in nature) and required to obtain or retain benefits (for approvals to engage in an activity that is complementary to a financial activity). The obligation to respond to the FR 4010, FR 4017, and FR 4019 is required to obtain or retain benefits. The obligation to respond to FR 4012 and the obligation to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of the FR 4023 is mandatory.

    The information collected on the FR 4010, FR 4011, FR 4017, and FR 4019 and information related to a failure to meet capital requirements on the FR 4012 is not generally considered confidential. Nevertheless, a respondent may request confidential treatment of information contained in these information collections in accordance with section (b)(4) or (b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (b)(6)). Any request for confidential treatment of information must be accompanied by a detailed justification for confidentiality. Information related to a failure to meet management requirements on the FR 4012 is considered confidential and exempt from disclosure under section (b)(4), because the release of this information would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the entity, and section (b)(8), if the information is related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (b)(8)).

    Additionally, the records kept in accordance with the Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Merchant Banking Activities are retained by the respondent itself and the FOIA would only be implicated if the Board's examiners retained a copy of the records as part of an examination or supervision of a banking institution. In this case, the records would likely be exempt from disclosure under exemption (b)(8), for examination material. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). In addition, the records may also be exempt under (b)(4) and (b)(6).

    Abstract: FR 4010.

    The BHC Act, and Regulations Y and LL specify the information to be included in a declaration.3 In most cases, FHC declarations are filed in the form of a letter addressed to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank.

    3 12 U.S.C. 1843(l)(1); 12 CFR 225.82, 238.65(b) and 225.91.

    An FHC declaration filed by a U.S. BHC must state that the BHC elects to become an FHC, must be signed by an authorized official or representative, and must provide the following information:

    • The name and head office address of the BHC and of each depository institution controlled by the BHC (multi-tiered filers may file a single declaration, provided the name and head office address of each tiered company is listed.) • a certification that the BHC and all depository institutions controlled by the BHC are well capitalized and well managed as of the declaration date • the capital ratios (as of the close of the previous quarter for all relevant capital measures) for each depository institution the BHC controls

    An FHC declaration filed by a U.S. SLHC must state that the SLHC elects to be treated as an FHC, must be signed by an authorized official or representative, and must provide the following information:

    • The name and head office address of the SLHC and of each depository institution controlled by the SLHC (Multi-tiered filers may file a single declaration, provided the name and head office address of each tiered company is listed.) • a certification that the SLHC and all depository institutions controlled by the SLHC are well capitalized and well managed as of the declaration date • the capital ratios (as of the close of the previous quarter for all relevant capital measures) for each depository institution the SLHC controls

    An FHC declaration filed by an FBO must state that the FBO elects to be treated as an FHC, must be signed by an authorized official or representative, and must provide the following information:

    • With respect to each foreign bank controlled by the FBO, the bank's risk-based capital ratios, amount of tier 1 capital, and total assets, as of the close of the most recent quarter and as of the close of the most recent audited reporting period • a certification that each foreign bank controlled by the FBO is well-capitalized and well-managed • a certification that all U.S. depository institutions controlled by the FBO are well capitalized and well managed as of the declaration date • the capital ratios (as of the close of the previous quarter for all relevant capital measures) for each U.S. depository institution controlled by the FBO FR 4011

    Regulation Y specifies the information to be collected in connection with each type of request.4 A request for a determination that an activity is financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity must be in writing and:

    4 12 CFR 225.88(b) and (e), and 225.89.

    • Identify, define, and describe the activity and explain how the activity would be conducted, • explain why the activity should be considered financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity; and • include information supporting the request and any other information required by the Board.

    A request for an advisory opinion that a specific activity is within the scope of activities previously determined to be financial in nature, or incidental to a financial activity, must be in writing and:

    • Identify and describe the proposed activity or the proposed product or service, • offer support for the desired interpretation, and • include any other information requested by the Board.

    An applicant seeking prior approval to engage in an activity that the applicant believes is complementary to a financial activity must submit a written request that:

    • Identifies, defines, and describes the activity and explains how the activity would be conducted; • identifies the financial activity to which the proposed activity would be complementary and provides information sufficient to support a finding that the proposed activity is complementary to the financial activity; • describes the scope and relative size of the proposed activity, measured by the percentage of the FHC's projected revenues expected to be derived from, and assets associated with, the activity; • discusses the risks the activity may reasonably be expected to pose to the safety and soundness of the FHC's depository institutions and to the financial system generally; • describes the potential adverse effects, including potential conflicts of interest, decreased or unfair competition, or other risks, that the activity could cause, and the measures the FHC proposes to take to address those potential effects; • describes the potential benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, the proposal may be reasonably expected to produce; and • provides information about the FHC's financial and managerial resources and any other information requested by the Board. FR 4012

    Regulation Y provides that the notice must identify the noncompliant banking entity and the area of noncompliance. Regulation Y does not prescribe a format for such notices, however, they typically take the form of a letter.5 Plans submitted to remediate capital and management deficiencies typically include the following:

    5 12 CFR 225.83(b)(1), 225.93(b)(1) and 238.66(b).

    • An explanation of the specific actions the FHC will take to correct all areas of noncompliance • a schedule within which each action will be taken • any other information the Board may require FR 4017

    Regulation H requires FR 4017 notices to be in the form of a letter with enclosures and to: 6

    6 12 CFR 208.76.

    • Describe the proposed transaction by which the bank would acquire the stake in the financial subsidiary; • provide the name and head office address of the subsidiary; • describe each current and proposed activity of the financial subsidiary and the legal authority for each activity; • provide the capital ratios, as of the end of the most recent calendar quarter, for the bank and each of its depository institution affiliates; • certify that the bank and each of its depository institution affiliates were well-capitalized at the close of the previous calendar quarter and as of the notice date; • certify that the bank and each of its depository institution affiliates are well-managed as of the notice date; • certify that the bank meets any applicable debt rating or alternative requirements and complies both before and after the transaction with the limit on the aggregate amount of assets held by the bank's financial subsidiaries; and • describe the insurance activities, if the financial subsidiary will engage in insurance activities, to be conducted and identify each state in which the company holds an insurance license and the state insurance authority that issued the license. FR 4019

    Regulation Y requires requests for extension of the holding period for a merchant bank investment to include the following information: 7

    7 12 CFR 225.172(b)(4).

    • The reasons for the request, including information addressing the factors the Board must consider in acting on such a request (including the costs and risks to the FHC of disposing of the investment, market conditions, the extent and history of the FHC's involvement in managing or operating the portfolio company, and the FHC's average holding period for its merchant banking investments) • an explanation of the FHC's plan for divesting the investment

    A notice of extended routine management or operation of a portfolio company can be in the form of a brief letter and must identify the portfolio company, the date on which the FHC first became involved in the routine management or operation of the portfolio company, the reasons for the FHC's involvement, the actions taken by the FHC to address the circumstances giving rise to its involvement, and an estimate of when the FHC anticipates ceasing routinely managing or operating the portfolio company.

    FR 4023

    The general policies and procedures that an FHC must establish with respect to merchant banking must be reasonably designed to: 8

    8 12 CFR 225.175(a)(1).

    • Monitor, with respect to each investment and the entire portfolio, carrying and market values and performance; • identify and manage market, credit, and other risks of such investments; • identify and monitor terms and risks of transactions of companies in which the FHC has merchant banking investments; • ensure the corporate separateness of the FHC and the companies in which it has merchant banking investments; • ensure compliance with sections 23A and 23B of the FRA, anti-tying statutes, Regulation Y, and any other applicable provisions of law.

    Current Actions: On October 18, 2016, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 71730) requesting public comment for 60 days on the proposal to extend, without revision, the reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to amendments made by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, to the Bank Holding Company Act, the Federal Reserve Act, and related regulations. The comment period for this notice expired on December 19, 2016. The Board did not receive any comments.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 11, 2017. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00841 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 10, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc., McLean, Virginia; to acquire Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc., Glen Allen, Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire EVB, Tappahannock, Virginia.

    In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to acquire additional shares of Southern Trust Mortgage LLC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc., Glen Allen, Virginia and EVB, Tappahannock, Virginia, and thereby engage in lending activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) or Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 11, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00846 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the final approval of a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the intermittent survey of business (FR 1374; OMB No. 7100-0302) and to extend for three years, without revision, the domestic finance company report of consolidated assets and liabilities (FR 2248; OMB No. 7100-0005) by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following reports:

    1. Report title: Intermittent Survey of Business.

    Agency form number: FR 1374.

    OMB control number: 7100-0302.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents: Businesses and state and local governments.

    Estimated number of respondents: 2,410.

    Estimated average hours per response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 1,825 hours.

    General Description of Report: The survey data are used by the Federal Reserve to gather information specifically tailored to the Federal Reserve's policy and operational responsibilities. There are two parts to this event-generated survey. First, under the guidance of Federal Reserve economists, the Federal Reserve Banks survey business contacts as economic developments warrant. Currently, there are approximately 2,400 business respondents for each survey (about 200 per Reserve Bank); occasionally state and local government officials are called, in which case there are far fewer respondents. It is necessary to conduct these surveys to provide timely information to the members of the Board and to the presidents of the Reserve Banks. Usually, these surveys are conducted by Reserve Bank economists telephoning or emailing purchasing managers, economists, or other knowledgeable individuals at selected, relevant businesses. Reserve Bank staff may also use online survey tools to collect responses to the survey. The frequency and content of the questions, as well as the entities contacted, vary depending on developments in the economy. Second, economists at the Board survey business contacts by telephone, inquiring about current business conditions. Board economists conduct these surveys as economic conditions require, with approximately ten respondents for each survey.

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board's Legal Division has determined that the Board is authorized to collect this information under sections 2A and 12A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 225a and 263) and that respondent participation in the survey is voluntary. Although the names of the participating entities might be disclosed in the summary memo and the memo might contain information provided to the Board for internal use only, exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) may exempt this information from disclosure to the public. However, if the information collected on the FR 1374 does not meet these standards for confidentiality (for example if the information collected is already public), it would not be granted confidential treatment.

    Current Actions: On October 3, 2016, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 68018) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 1374. The comment period for this notice expired on December 2, 2016. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments.

    2. Report title: Domestic Finance Company Report of Consolidated Assets and Liabilities.

    Agency form number: FR 2248.

    OMB control number: 7100-0005.

    Frequency: Monthly, quarterly, and semi-annually.

    Respondents : Domestic finance companies and mortgage companies.

    Estimated number of respondents: 450.

    Estimated average hours per response: Monthly, 20 minutes; quarterly, 30 minutes; Addendum, 10 minutes.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 750 hours.

    General Description of Report: The FR 2248 is collected monthly as of the last calendar day of the month from a stratified sample of finance companies. Each monthly report collects balance sheet data on major categories of consumer and business credit receivables and on major short-term liabilities. For quarter-end months (March, June, September, and December), additional asset and liability items are collected to provide a full balance sheet. A supplemental section collects data on securitized assets. The data are used to construct universe estimates of finance company holdings, which are published in the monthly statistical releases Finance Companies (G.20) and Consumer Credit (G.19), in the quarterly statistical release Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States (Z.1), and in the Federal Reserve Bulletin (Tables 1.51, 1.52, and 1.55).

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board's Legal Division has determined that the FR 2248 is authorized by law pursuant to Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 225a). The obligation to respond is voluntary. Individual respondent data are confidential under section (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

    Current Actions: On October 3, 2016, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 68018) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 2248. The comment period for this notice expired on December 2, 2016. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 11, 2017. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00842 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-17BX] 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] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice 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

    Understanding the Needs, Challenges, Opportunities, Vision and Emerging Roles in Environmental Health (UNCOVER EH)—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

    Background and Brief Description

    The environmental health (EH) workforce is an essential component of the public health workforce. According to recent health department surveys, EH professionals are employed at approximately 85% of local health departments, 81% of state health departments, and 30% of tribal health departments. Describing and characterizing the EH workforce is essential to identifying gaps in staffing, training, and ultimately ensuring EH professionals are prepared to meet future challenges. Because EH professionals play a crucial role in decreasing illness in our communities and protecting people from traditional and emerging environmental factors that may adversely affect human health, the workforce challenges facing this critical component of the public health system are a concern for public and community health. CDC's goal is to create a strong, sustained, and prepared EH workforce to meet today's challenges and improve the health and safety of all. In order to meet this goal, it is necessary to first describe and characterize the EH workforce to assess their needs, challenges, and opportunities.

    This is a one-time information collection designed to thoroughly describe the health department EH workforce on: (1) The current supply of EH professionals; (2) EH workforce demographics and professional roles; (3) gaps in current EH education and competencies and training needs; and (4) critical skills and resources needed to meet the evolving and emerging EH issues and challenges. This information will benefit the government and other entities by providing essential data to inform and support workforce development activities and initiatives and understand areas of practice and where gaps may exist in capacity to address current EH issues and future challenges.

    The survey will be offered to the estimated 20,000 EH professionals working within health departments. They will be enumerated and recruited by identifying a point of contact in each state, local, tribal, and territorial health department from whom a roster of EH professionals will be requested. A list of respondents and their business email addresses will be generated and used for recruitment and survey administration. Any contact information collected will be related to the respondents' role in the organization. Participation will be voluntary. We expect approximately 80 percent of the estimated 20,000 EH professionals (16,000 respondents) to respond to the survey.

    Data will be collected one time from a census of members of the public health department EH workforce using a web-based survey instrument. The UNCOVER EH Survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete per respondent. There will be no cost to respondents other than their time. The requested time burden is 8,269 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Health Department EH Administrative Staff Health Department Roster 3,231 1 5/60 Health Department EH Professionals UNCOVER EH Survey 16,000 1 30/60
    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. 2017-00815 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17KB; Docket No. CDC-2017-0002] 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 a proposed information collection titled “Assessment of the Market for Electronic Technology for Underground Coal Mining Safety and Health Applications.” From this information collection project, NIOSH seeks to provide insight into what the most important barriers are from the perspective of the organizations that must purchase, use, approve, and manufacture these safety technologies.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before March 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0002 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.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.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    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

    Assessment of the Market for Electronic Technology for Underground Coal Mining Safety and Health Applications—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Underground coal mining in the U.S. is a relatively small industry (about 46,000 employees) that operates in a unique and hazardous work environment. The common presence of explosive gasses and other hazards creates special safety requirements for equipment, including safety and health protection technologies, used in underground coal mines. This request is for a 2-year approval period.

    The MINER Act of 2006 assigned the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) the responsibility to enhance development of new mine safety and health protection technology and technological applications and to expedite the commercial availability and implementation of such technology. As part of this study, NIOSH seeks to identify the barriers to commercial availability and implementation of such technology in U.S. mines.

    Experience to date has shown that there are many issues that the U.S. mining industry faces that create barriers to the availability and implementation of safety technologies, and we believe there are other more subtle reasons that we do not fully understand as a Government research agency. The data are intended to provide insight into what the most important barriers are from the perspective of the organizations that must purchase, use, approve, and manufacture these safety technologies.

    NIOSH has an understanding of some of these barriers, however NIOSH is not an end user of these products. Thus the goal of the study is to provide a complete perspective of the barriers from the point of view of the mine operators and technology innovators, in order to improve the efficacy of the contract and grant awards that NIOSH administers under the authority of the MINER Act.

    The Federal Mine Safety & Health Act of 1977, Section 501 authorizes the collection of this data. A CDC contractor will collect the required data.

    NIOSH will identify 200 stakeholder organizations for structured interviews. Stakeholder organizations include those parties involved in the development, supply, use, and regulation of safety and health protection technologies relevant to underground coal mining. Because there is no nationally representative database of these stakeholder organizations, NIOSH will use web searches of supplier and mining company Web sites, online mining publications, trade association member directories, federal and state regulator Web sites, and university mining research and development programs to compile a list of 200 organizations. Representatives of NIOSH Office of Mining Safety and Health Research will also augment the search with their input.

    Of the 200 stakeholder organizations, we expect to elicit participation from 100 and conduct 150 interviews (up to 2 interviews per organization).

    A pre-call to each organization is expected to require 15 minutes to complete and the structured interview is expected to require 60 minutes to complete; including the time it may take respondents to look-up and retrieve needed information.

    In addition, the workshop will be held in-person and last for nine hours. An average of six hours of travel is estimated for participants in the workshop. The estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this information collection is 650 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Receptionists Pre-Call 200 1 15/60 50 General and Operational Managers Structured Interview 75 1 60/60 75 Industrial Production Managers 38 1 60/60 38 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 37 1 60/60 37 General and Operations Managers Workshop 15 1 15 225 Industrial Production Managers 8 1 15 120 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 7 1 15 105 Total 650
    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. 2017-00833 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-3070G-I and CMS-R-38] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: ICF/IID Survey Report Form and Supporting Regulations; Use: The information collected with forms 3070G-I is used to determine the level of compliance with Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID) CoPs necessary to participate in the Medicare/Medicaid program. Information needed to monitor the State's performance as well as the ICF/IID program in general, is available to CMS only through the use of information abstracted from the survey report form. The form serves as a coding worksheet designed to facilitate data entry and retrieval into the Automated Survey Processing Environment Suite (ASPEN) in the State and at the CMS regional offices. Form Number: CMS-3070G-I (OMB control number: 0938-0062); Frequency: Reporting—Yearly; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 6,310; Total Annual Responses: 6,310; Total Annual Hours: 18,930. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Melissa Rice at 410-786-3270.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Conditions for Certification for Rural Health Clinics; Use: The Rural Health Clinic (RHC) conditions of certification are based on criteria prescribed in law and are designed to ensure that each facility has a properly trained staff to provide appropriate care and to assure a safe physical environment for patients. We use these conditions of participation to certify RHCs wishing to participate in the Medicare program. These requirements are similar in intent to standards developed by industry organizations such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, and the National League of Nursing and the American Public Association and merely reflect accepted standards of management and care to which rural health clinics must adhere. Form Number: CMS-R-38 (OMB control number: 0938-0334); Frequency: Recordkeeping and Reporting—Annually; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 4,247; Total Annual Responses: 4,247; Total Annual Hours: 18,284. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Jacqueline Leach at 410-786-4282.)

    Dated: January 11, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory, Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00863 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10638] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by March 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10638 PRA for Add-On Payments for New Medical Services and Technologies Paid Under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: PRA for Add-On Payments for New Medical Services and Technologies Paid Under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System; Use: Sections 1886(d)(5)(K) and (L) of the Act establish a process of identifying and ensuring adequate payment for new medical services and technologies (sometimes collectively referred to in this section as “new technologies”) under the IPPS. Section1886(d)(5)(K)(vi) of the Act specifies that a medical service or technology will be considered new if it meets criteria established by the Secretary after notice and opportunity for public comment. Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(ii)(I) of the Act specifies that a new medical service or technology may be considered for new technology add-on payment if, “based on the estimated costs incurred with respect to discharges involving such service or technology, the DRG prospective payment rate otherwise applicable to such discharges under this subsection is inadequate.” The regulations at 42 CFR 412.87 implement these provisions and specify three criteria for a new medical service or technology to receive the additional payment: (1) The medical service or technology must be new; (2) the medical service or technology must be costly such that the DRG rate otherwise applicable to discharges involving the medical service or technology is determined to be inadequate; and (3) the service or technology must demonstrate a substantial clinical improvement over existing services or technologies. We use the application in order to determine if a technology meets the new technology criteria. Form Number: CMS-10638 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Individuals and households, Private sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profits institutions; Number of Respondents: 15; Total Annual Responses: 15; Total Annual Hours: 600. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Noel Manlove at 410-786-5161.)

    Dated: January 11, 2017. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00860 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed collection of information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. This notice collects comments on the information collection requirements relating to an existing collection previously in use without an OMB Control Number: Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by March 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by email to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wilma Roberts, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Office of Program Support, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, 202-795-7449.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, ACL is publishing a notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. The Children's Health Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. Section 300d-53(h), requires the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System in each State to annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a report that includes documentation of the progress they have made in serving individuals with traumatic brain injury. AIDD will review the program performance report (PPR) for compliance and for program outcomes. AIDD will aggregate the information in the PPRs into a national profile of programmatic activities and accomplishments. Information from these reports is shared with the public through postings to the ACL.gov Web site. The information will also allow AIDD to track accomplishments against performance goals and determine areas where technical assistance is needed to comply with Federal requirements or improve performance.

    The proposed Protection and or Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report (PPR) form can be found on the AIDD Web site at: https://acl.gov/Programs/AIDD/Program_Resource_Search/Results_PA.aspx.

    Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    ACL estimates the burden hours for this collection of information as follows:

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    PATBI PPR 57 1 16 912
    Dated: January 10, 2017. Edwin Walker, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00879 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration on Community Living Proposed Information Collection Activity; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy Annual Program Performance Report and Statement of Goals and Priorities AGENCY:

    Office of Program Support, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Administration on Disability, Administration on Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration on Disability is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax 202.395.5806 or by email to [email protected], Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clare Huerta, Administration on Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Office of Program Support, 330 C Street SW., DC, Washington, DC 20201, by email: [email protected] or by phone: (202) 795-7301.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with section 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    This notice seeks to collect comments on revisions to two existing data collections. The first is the Annual Protection and Advocacy Systems Program Performance Report (0985-0027). State Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Systems in each State and Territory provide individual legal advocacy, systemic advocacy, monitoring and investigations to protect and advance the rights of people with developmental disabilities, using funding administered by the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Administration on Disability, Administration on Community Living, HHS. The Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 15044 requires each P&A to annually prepare a Program Performance Report (PPR) that describes the activities and accomplishments of the system during the preceding fiscal year.

    The Act also requires P&As to submit a Statement of Goals and Priorities (SGP) (0985-0034) for each coming fiscal year. P&As are required to annually report on “the activities, accomplishments, and expenditures of the system during the preceding fiscal year, including a description of the system's goals, the extent to which the goals were achieved, barriers to their achievement, the process used to obtain public input, the nature of such input, and how such input was used.”

    To meet it statutory reporting requirements, P&As have used separate forms for submitting the annual PPR (0985-0027) and the SGP (0985-0034). The Department is proposing that the two be combined by creating a Protection and Advocacy Annual Program Performance Report and Statement of Goals and Priorities form. By combining the forms, P&As will have a reduced burden because they will only have to submit one annual report. The combined form will also allow federal reviewers to analyze patterns more readily between goals and priority setting and program performance.

    The annual PPR and SGP are reviewed by federal staff for compliance and outcomes. Information in the PPRs and SGPs is analyzed to create a national profile of programmatic compliance, outcomes, and goals and priorities for P&A Systems for tracking accomplishments against goals and to formulate areas of technical assistance related to compliance with Federal requirements and program performance. Information collected in the unified report will inform AIDD of trends in P&A advocacy, collaboration with other federally-funded entities, and identify best practices for efficient use of federal funds.

    Comments in Response to the 60 Day Federal Register Notice

    A notice was published in the Federal Register in Vol. 81, No. 57592 on August 23, 2016, announcing that ACL was requesting approval of a data collection (ICR New). ACL received two comments expressing concern that the combination of the SGP and PPR reporting forms would reduce the overall oversight of the P&A program. ACL responds that, while the reporting forms are being combined, the content which the grantees are reporting remains the same, with the addition of more quantitative measures to support the qualitative data that the grantees provide every year. The addition of more quantitative measures will provide a fuller picture of how the programs are functioning. The combined PPR and SGP allow federal staff to review the same information from the programs in a streamlined format that reduces the need to reenter the same information multiple times. ACL does not plan to make any changes in the data collection based on these comments.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration on Community Living is soliciting public comment on the burden related to the information collection described above. The form is available at: http://www.acl.gov/Programs/AIDD/Program_Resource_Search/Results_PA.aspx.

    Estimated Burden: The average burden for the 57 Protection and Advocacy Systems i was calculated based on consultations with selected States.

    i This number includes the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and three Outlying Areas.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    Protection and Advocacy Annual Program Performance Report and Statement of Goals and Priorities 57 1 75 4,275

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,275.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Edwin L. Walker, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00880 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-4412] Comparative Analyses and Related Comparative Use Human Factors Studies for a Drug-Device Combination Product Submitted in an Abbreviated New Drug Application; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Comparative Analyses and Related Comparative Use Human Factors Studies for a Drug-Device Combination Product Submitted in an ANDA.” This draft guidance is intended to assist potential applicants who plan to develop and submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to seek approval of a generic combination product that includes both a drug constituent part and a delivery device constituent part.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance March 20, 2017.

    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-D-4412 for “Comparative Analyses and Related Comparative Use Human Factors Studies for a Drug-Device Combination Product Submitted in an ANDA.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew LeBoeuf, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-0503, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Comparative Analyses and Related Comparative Use Human Factors Studies for a Drug-Device Combination Product Submitted in an ANDA.”

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the Hatch-Waxman Amendments) created, among other things, section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)). Under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act, an ANDA applicant can rely on FDA's previous finding that the reference listed drug (RLD) is safe and effective so long as the ANDA applicant demonstrates that the proposed drug product and the RLD are the same with respect to active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, and, with certain exceptions, labeling. An ANDA must also include sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed product is bioequivalent to the RLD, and that the ANDA meets the approval requirements relating to chemistry, manufacturing, and controls. An ANDA generally is not required to be the same as the listed drug it references in certain respects. For example, a generic drug generally can differ from its RLD in certain respects with regard to the device or with respect to inactive ingredients.

    Drug products that meet the approval requirements under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act are generally considered by FDA to be therapeutically equivalent to their RLD. Products classified as therapeutically equivalent can be substituted with the full expectation that the generic product will produce the same clinical effect and safety profile as the RLD under the conditions specified in the labeling.

    These general principles apply to products submitted in ANDAs, including drug-device combination products. A generic drug-device combination product classified as therapeutically equivalent to the RLD can be expected to produce the same clinical effect and safety profile as the RLD under the conditions specified in labeling. This does not mean, however, that the proposed generic drug-device combination product and its RLD need to be identical in all respects. FDA recognizes that an identical design may not always be feasible and, in certain instances, differences in the design of the user interface for a generic drug-device combination product as compared to the RLD may exist without precluding approval of the generic combination drug-device product under an ANDA. In some instances in which differences exist, certain additional information and/or data relating to the user-interface of the proposed generic drug-device combination product, such as data from comparative use human factors studies, may be appropriate to support approval of the proposed product in an ANDA. The extent to which differences between the proposed product and the RLD affect the approvability of the proposed ANDA product will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    This draft guidance provides general principles, including recommendations on threshold analyses, which are intended to assist potential applicants in the identification and the assessment of differences in the design of the user interface of a proposed generic drug-device combination product when compared to the user interface for its RLD.

    This draft guidance also provides recommendations on the design and conduct of comparative use human factors studies that may help applicants determine whether design differences identified between the proposed generic drug-device combination product and its RLD would preclude approval as an ANDA under the FD&C Act.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Comparative Analyses and Related Comparative Use Human Factors Studies for a Drug-Device Combination Product Submitted in an ANDA.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00795 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-0121] Compliance Policy for Required Warning Statements on Small-Packaged Cigars; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Compliance Policy for Required Warning Statements on Small-Packaged Cigars.” The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to assist any person who manufacturers, packages, sells, offers to sell, distributes, or imports cigars in small packages, in complying with the warning statement requirements in FDA's regulations deeming all other products that meet the statutory definition of a tobacco product to be subject to Chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). The draft guidance describes FDA's compliance policy for cigars in packaging that is too small or otherwise unable to accommodate a label with sufficient space to bear the required warning statements. The draft guidance explains that FDA does not intend to take enforcement action with respect to cigars that do not comply with the size and placement requirements in the regulation when the information and specifications required under the regulation appear on the carton or other outer container or wrapper that could accommodate the required warning statements, or on a tag otherwise firmly and permanently affixed to the cigar package.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 16, 2017.

    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-2017-D-0121 for “Compliance Policy for Required Warning Statements on Small-Packaged Cigars.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance document may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deirdre Jurand, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Compliance Policy for Required Warning Statements on Small-Packaged Cigars.”

    On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act granted FDA the authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.

    The Tobacco Control Act also gave FDA the authority to issue a regulation deeming all other products that meet the statutory definition of a tobacco product to be subject to Chapter IX of the FD&C Act (section 901(b) of the FD&C Act). On May 10, 2016, FDA issued that rule, extending FDA's tobacco product authority to cigars, among other products (81 FR 28974). Among the requirements that now apply to cigars are health warning statements prescribed under section 906(d) of the FD&C Act, which permits restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products that are “appropriate for the protection of the public health.” The rule specifies the health warning statements that must be displayed on cigar packaging and where those statements must be placed, among other requirements.

    The draft guidance discusses FDA's compliance policy for cigars with packaging too small or otherwise unable to accommodate the warning statements and specifications required under the regulation.

    II. Significance of Draft Guidance

    FDA is issuing this draft guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on its compliance policy for cigars in small packaging. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 1143 have been approved under 0910-0768.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00855 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-0120] Interpretation of and Compliance Policy for Certain Label Requirement; Applicability of Certain Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Requirements to Vape Shops; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Interpretation of and Compliance Policy for Certain Label Requirement; Applicability of Certain Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Requirements to Vape Shops.” This draft guidance provides FDA's interpretation of, and a compliance policy for, the requirement that the label of tobacco products contain an accurate statement of the percentage of foreign and domestic grown tobacco under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). This draft guidance document is also intended to assist retailers who sell newly deemed products by explaining whether engaging in certain activities subjects such establishments to additional requirements of the FD&C Act and the limited circumstances under which FDA does not intend to enforce compliance.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://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 https://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-2017-D-0120 for “Interpretation of and Compliance Policy for Certain Label Requirement; Applicability of Certain Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Requirements to Vape Shops.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance document may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Collins, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Interpretation of and Compliance Policy for Certain Label Requirement; Applicability of Certain Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Requirements to Vape Shops.”

    This draft guidance document, when finalized, will provide FDA's interpretation of, and a compliance policy for, the label requirement under section 903(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387c(a)(2)(C)). This draft guidance document, when finalized, is also intended to assist retailers who sell newly deemed products by explaining whether engaging in certain activities subjects such establishments to additional requirements of the FD&C Act and the limited circumstances under which FDA does not intend to enforce compliance.

    The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31) (Tobacco Control Act), enacted on June 22, 2009, amends section 904 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387d) and provides FDA with the authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.

    Cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco were immediately covered by FDA's tobacco product authorities in chapter IX of the FD&C Act, when the Tobacco Control Act went into effect. As for other types of tobacco products, section 901(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387a(b)) grants FDA authority to deem those products subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act. Under that authority, FDA issued a rule deeming all other products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product,” set forth in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), except for accessories of those products, as subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act (81 FR 28974). FDA published the final rule on May 10, 2016, and it became effective on August 8, 2016.

    Section 903(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act provides that a tobacco product in package form is misbranded unless its label contains “an accurate statement of the percentage of tobacco used in the product that is domestically grown tobacco and the percentage that is foreign grown tobacco.” The draft guidance provides FDA's interpretation of, and a compliance policy for, this label requirement.

    Retail establishments, such as vape shops, which engage in certain activities may also be subject to certain requirements of the FD&C Act that apply to tobacco product manufacturers and to establishments that engage in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of tobacco product. These activities may also include modifying a product so that it is a new tobacco product requiring compliance with the premarket authorization requirements. This draft guidance explains which activities subject vape shops to these FD&C Act requirements and the limited circumstances under which FDA does not intend to enforce compliance.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    FDA is issuing this draft guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the draft guidance at either https://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

    Dated: January 9, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00773 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-0114] Referencing Approved Drug Products in Abbreviated New Drug Application Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Referencing Approved Drug Products in ANDA Submissions.” Any person is permitted to submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) in order to seek approval to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. The purpose of this guidance is to provide information to potential applicants on how to identify a reference listed drug (RLD), reference standard, and the basis of submission in an ANDA submission.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://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 https://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-2017-D-0114 for “Referencing Approved Drug Products in ANDA Submissions.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gail Schmerfeld, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9291, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Referencing Approved Drug Products in ANDA Submissions.” To obtain approval of an ANDA submitted under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)), an ANDA applicant generally must show, among other things, that the proposed generic drug has the same active ingredient(s), conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, strength, and, with certain permissible differences, labeling as the specific listed drug referred to in the ANDA, i.e., the RLD. Under section 505(j)(2)(A)(iv) of the FD&C Act, the ANDA applicant also must demonstrate that the proposed generic drug is bioequivalent to the RLD and, if in vivo bioequivalence studies are required for approval of the ANDA, the applicant must use the reference standard selected by FDA in such testing (21 CFR 314.3(b)). Further, under section 505(j)(2)(A)(vi) of the FD&C Act, a generic drug must meet the same high standards of quality and manufacturing as drug products approved under section 505(c) of the FD&C Act.

    This guidance provides information to potential applicants on how to identify a “reference listed drug,” “reference standard,” and the “basis of submission” in ANDA submissions. A variety of factors has led to confusion among stakeholders on what these terms mean and how an ANDA applicant should use them. These factors include the discontinued marketing of many approved drug products and FDA's identification of reference standards with the RLD symbol (“+”) in the printed version, and under the “RLD” column in the electronic version, of FDA's “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (the “Orange Book”). This guidance is intended to address this confusion by explaining what these terms mean and clarifying the differences among them. This guidance provides recommendations on how to accurately use these terms in an ANDA, how persons can request FDA designation of an RLD, and how persons can request FDA selection of a reference standard.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on Referencing Approved Drug Products in ANDA Submissions. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 11, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-00820 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-4662] Public Hearing: Strategic Partnerships To Enhance the Safety of Imported Foods: Capacity Building, Risk-Based Decisionmaking, Recognition of Commodity Food Control Programs, and Systems Recognition; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearing; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing a public hearing regarding FDA initiatives for enhancing the safety of foods (for humans and animals) imported into the United States. The hearing will focus on partnerships to improve safety capabilities through capacity building; partnerships that incorporate information from private entities and foreign competent authorities to inform risk-based decisionmaking; partnerships that recognize commodity-specific export programs; and partnerships that recognize the robustness of a nation's entire food safety system. In addition, we are seeking information from a variety of viewpoints, including from competent authorities in other countries and from private entities, to help inform FDA regarding risk-based decisionmaking, commodity-specific export control programs in other countries, and systems recognition.

    DATES:

    See “How to Participate in the Hearing” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for dates and times of the public meetings, closing dates for advance registration, requesting special accommodations due to disability, closing date to submit comments to the docket, and other information regarding meeting participation.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely