Federal Register Vol. 81, No.111,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 111 (June 9, 2016)

Page Range37121-37476
FR Document

81_FR_111
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 37483 - Suspension of Limitations under the Jerusalem Embassy ActPDF
81 FR 37481 - Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012PDF
81 FR 37479 - Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016PDF
81 FR 37178 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 37196 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 37196 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 37156 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard DistrictPDF
81 FR 37153 - Advisory Committee; Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee; TerminationPDF
81 FR 37168 - Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NYPDF
81 FR 37200 - Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the First Quarter of Calendar Year 2016PDF
81 FR 37208 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Bureau of Indian Education Advisory Board for Exceptional ChildrenPDF
81 FR 37170 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Stationary Source Permitting RevisionsPDF
81 FR 37180 - Implementation of Determinations Pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements ActPDF
81 FR 37175 - Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Graduate Medical Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; and Technical Changes Relating to Costs to Organizations and Medicare Cost Reports; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 37241 - Proposed Priorities for Amendment CyclePDF
81 FR 37240 - Requests for Applications; Practitioners Advisory GroupPDF
81 FR 37199 - Request for Public Comment: 30 Day Information Collection: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act ContractsPDF
81 FR 37207 - Proposed Information Collection; Import of Sport-Hunted African Elephant TrophiesPDF
81 FR 37236 - International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 37216 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 37217 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 37210 - Certain Mobile and Portable Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and Laptops) and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 37187 - Harmful Algal Bloom Programs Termination of Regional RotationsPDF
81 FR 37177 - Lincoln National Forest; New Mexico; Integrated Non-Native Invasive Plant ManagementPDF
81 FR 37239 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations-Report on Closure by U.S. Financial Institutions of Correspondent Accounts and Payable-Through AccountsPDF
81 FR 37164 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Snowy GrouperPDF
81 FR 37178 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program; Form ED-840P Petition by a Firm for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for FirmsPDF
81 FR 37238 - 3D Surrogate Vehicle Scanning EventPDF
81 FR 37158 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NYPDF
81 FR 37128 - Revisions to Safety Standard for Carriages and StrollersPDF
81 FR 37198 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 37209 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; ColoradoPDF
81 FR 37210 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; ColoradoPDF
81 FR 37210 - Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meetings for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conserv ation Area Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 37158 - Regulated Navigation Area; Holiday Events; Biscayne Bay, Miami, FLPDF
81 FR 37157 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Nassau, NYPDF
81 FR 37156 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saugatuck River, Saugatuck, CTPDF
81 FR 37186 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 37192 - Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures; American Wind Energy Association; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference CommentsPDF
81 FR 37192 - Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Gulf Xpress Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping MeetingPDF
81 FR 37191 - Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 37191 - FFP Missouri 5, LLC; FFP Missouri 6, LLC; Solia 6 Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental AssessmentPDF
81 FR 37195 - Notice of ConferencePDF
81 FR 37192 - Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of ComplaintPDF
81 FR 37218 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program (Railroad Retirement Board-Office of Personnel Management)PDF
81 FR 37215 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as AmendedPDF
81 FR 37184 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification WorkshopsPDF
81 FR 37236 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Boone County, W.Va.PDF
81 FR 37196 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 37218 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 37217 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 37212 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc.PDF
81 FR 37212 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Development and Validation of FlawPRO for Assessing Defect Tolerance of Welded Pipes Under Generalized High Strain ConditionsPDF
81 FR 37212 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc.PDF
81 FR 37214 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-DVD Copy Control AssociationPDF
81 FR 37215 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc.PDF
81 FR 37211 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-fd.io Project, Inc.PDF
81 FR 37215 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Node.js FoundationPDF
81 FR 37213 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-AllSeen Alliance, Inc.PDF
81 FR 37213 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-International Electronics Manufacturing InitiativePDF
81 FR 37213 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-TeleManagement ForumPDF
81 FR 37195 - Media Bureau Announces Date by Which LPTV and TV Translator Stations Must Be “Operating” in Order To Participate in Post-Incentive Auction Special Displacement WindowPDF
81 FR 37188 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice Requesting Approval of New Collection, CFTC SmartCheck Annual Campaign Impact Tracking Survey, 3038-NEWPDF
81 FR 37187 - Market Risk Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 37237 - Environmental Impact and Related ProceduresPDF
81 FR 37184 - Permits; Foreign FishingPDF
81 FR 37231 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 37222 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Virtus Japan Alpha ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 37232 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Pursuant to Which It Would Impose Deposit Chills and Global Locks and Provide Fair Procedures to IssuersPDF
81 FR 37229 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Remove From the DTCC Limit Monitoring Tool the 50% Early Warning Limit Alert and Make Technical Revisions to the RulesPDF
81 FR 37219 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 37220 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the GCF Repo® ServicePDF
81 FR 37196 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Title: Evaluation of the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative: Part TwoPDF
81 FR 37179 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; International Import CertificatePDF
81 FR 37179 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Delivery Verification Procedure for ImportsPDF
81 FR 37160 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Removal of Gasoline Vapor Recovery RequirementsPDF
81 FR 37162 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur DioxidePDF
81 FR 37175 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur DioxidePDF
81 FR 37198 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 37126 - Amendment of Class C Airspace; Billings Logan International Airport, MTPDF
81 FR 37127 - Amendment of Class C Airspace; Capital Region International Airport, MIPDF
81 FR 37166 - Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 37153 - Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 37132 - Form 10-K SummaryPDF
81 FR 37121 - Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan GuaranteesPDF
81 FR 37138 - Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System DisordersPDF
81 FR 37476 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37470 - Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
81 FR 37466 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
81 FR 37462 - Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
81 FR 37424 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Spring 2016PDF
81 FR 37418 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37412 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37408 - Regulatory Flexibility AgendaPDF
81 FR 37400 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37392 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37390 - Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37386 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
81 FR 37374 - Spring 2016 Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37370 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
81 FR 37366 - Semiannual AgendaPDF
81 FR 37342 - Department Regulatory Agenda; Semiannual SummaryPDF
81 FR 37334 - Semiannual Agenda of RegulationsPDF
81 FR 37330 - Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37324 - Unified Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37320 - Semiannual Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37308 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
81 FR 37294 - Regulatory AgendaPDF
81 FR 37288 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
81 FR 37284 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
81 FR 37280 - Improving Government Regulations; Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
81 FR 37262 - Spring 2016 Semiannual Agenda of RegulationsPDF
81 FR 37250 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Spring 2016PDF
81 FR 37244 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsPDF
81 FR 37124 - Airworthiness Directives; EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. GlidersPDF
81 FR 37122 - Airworthiness Directives; BLANIK LIMITED GlidersPDF

Issue

81 111 Thursday, June 9, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37250-37259 2016-12899
Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Membership Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: AllSeen Alliance, Inc., 37213 2016-13627 Cooperative Research Group on Development and Validation of FlawPRO for Assessing Defect Tolerance of Welded Pipes under Generalized High Strain Conditions, 37212 2016-13633 DVD Copy Control Association, 37214-37215 2016-13631 fd.io Project, Inc., 37211-37212 2016-13629 Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc., 37215 2016-13630 International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative, 37213 2016-13626 Node.js Foundation, 37215 2016-13628 Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc., 37212-37213 2016-13634 TeleManagement Forum, 37213-37214 2016-13625 UHD Alliance, Inc., 37212 2016-13632 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37370-37371 2016-12919 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37412-37415 2016-12931 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals, etc.; Correction, 37175-37176 2016-13685 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37196-37198 2016-13610 2016-13662 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37178 2016-13802 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NY, 37158 2016-13664 Reynolds Channel, Nassau, NY, 37157 2016-13654 Saugatuck River, Saugatuck, CT, 37156-37157 2016-13653 Regulated Navigation Areas: Holiday Events; Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL, 37158-37160 2016-13656 Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones: Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District, 37156 2016-13707 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Grounds: Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY, 37168-37170 2016-13701 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37262-37278 2016-12900
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37408-37409 2016-12930 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: CFTC SmartCheck Annual Campaign Impact Tracking Survey, 37188-37190 2016-13623 Meetings: Market Risk Advisory Committee, 37187-37188 2016-13622 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Revisions to Safety Standard for Carriages and Strollers, 37128-37132 2016-13663 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37418-37421 2016-12932 Defense Department Defense Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37280-37281, 37400-37405 2016-12901 2016-12928 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, 37178-37179 2016-13666 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37284-37285 2016-12902 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37288-37291 2016-12903
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; Removal of Gasoline Vapor Recovery Requirements, 37160-37162 2016-13605 Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide, 37162-37164 2016-13604 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Idaho; Stationary Source Permitting Revisions, 37170-37175 2016-13693 Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide, 37175 2016-13603 Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37374-37383 2016-12921 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: BLANIK LIMITED Gliders, 37122-37124 2016-12591 EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Gliders, 37124-37126 2016-12601 Amendments of Class C Airspace: Billings Logan International Airport, MT, 37126-37127 2016-13553 Capital Region International Airport, MI, 37127-37128 2016-13551 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes, 37166-37168 2016-13544 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37424-37460 2016-12933 NOTICES Date by which LPTV and TV Translator Stations must be Operating in Order to Participate in Post-Incentive Auction Special Displacement Window, 37195-37196 2016-13624 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37196 2016-13760 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Complaints: Michigan South Central Power v. Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, 37192 2016-13645 Conference: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc, 37195 2016-13646 Environmental Assessment Statements; Availability, etc.: FFP Missouri 5, LLC FFP Missouri 6, LLC Solia 6 Hydroelectric, LLC, 37191-37192 2016-13647 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 37192-37195 2016-13649 Permit Applications: Energy Resources USA Inc., 37191 2016-13648 Post Technical Conference: Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures; American Wind Energy Association, 37192 2016-13650 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37196 2016-13711 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, 37237-37238 2016-13621 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37462-37463 2016-12934 NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 37196 2016-13639 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Import of Sport-Hunted African Elephant Trophies, 37207-37208 2016-13678 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Advisory Committee; Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee; Termination, 37153 2016-13705 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations: Report on Closure by U.S. Financial Institutions of Correspondent Accounts and Payable-Through Accounts, 37239-37240 2016-13668 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Lincoln National Forest, NM; Integrated Non-Native Invasive Plant Management, 37177-37178 2016-13669 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37386-37387, 37400-37405 2016-12924 2016-12928 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37294-37306 2016-12904 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37198-37199 2016-13602
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37308-37317 2016-12906
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37320-37321 2016-12907 NOTICES Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for First Quarter of Calendar Year 2016, 37200-37207 2016-13699 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Bureau of Indian Education Advisory Board for Exceptional Children, 37208-37209 2016-13694 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Contracts, 37199-37200 2016-13679 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Delivery Verification Procedure for Imports, 37179 2016-13607 International Import Certificate, 37179-37180 2016-13608 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37324-37327 2016-12908
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Implementation of Determinations Pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 37180-37184 2016-13691 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Mobile and Portable Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and Laptops) and Components Thereof, 37210-37211 2016-13671 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37330-37331 2016-12909
Labor Department Labor Department PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37334-37339 2016-12911 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as Amended, 37215-37216 2016-13642 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council, 37210 2016-13658 Plats of Survey: Colorado, 37209-37210 2016-13659 2016-13660 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37390, 37400-37405 2016-12925 2016-12928 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: 3D Surrogate Vehicle Scanning Event, 37238-37239 2016-13665 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: South Atlantic Snowy Grouper; Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure, 37164-37165 2016-13667 NOTICES Harmful Algal Blooms Program: Regional Rotations; Termination, 37187 2016-13670 Meetings: Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops, 37184-37186 2016-13641 Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 37186-37187 2016-13652 Permits: Foreign Fishing, 37184 2016-13619 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37466-37468 2016-12959 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue RULES Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment, 37153-37156 2016-13462 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 37216-37217 2016-13674 2016-13675 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 37217-37218 2016-13636 2016-13637 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Defense and National Security: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Presidential Determination No. 2016-06 of May 19, 2016), 37481-37482 2016-13863 Jerusalem Embassy Act; Suspension of Limitations (Presidential Determination No. 2016-07 of June 1, 2016), 37483 2016-13866 North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016; Delegation of Functions and Authorities (Memorandum of May 18, 2016), 37477-37480 2016-13851 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program, 37218-37219 2016-13643 Regulatory Regulatory Information Service Center PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37244-37248 2016-12869 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service RULES Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees, 37121-37122 2016-13302 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Summary of Form 10-K, 37132-37138 2016-13328 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37470-37473 2016-12968 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37231-37232 2016-13616 2016-13617 2016-13618 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 37220-37222 2016-13611 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 37219-37220 2016-13612 National Securities Clearing Corp., 37229-37231 2016-13613 NYSE Arca, Inc., 37222-37229 2016-13615 The Depository Trust Co., 37232-37236 2016-13614 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37392-37398 2016-12927 Social Social Security Administration RULES Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System Disorders, 37138-37153 2016-13275 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: International Security Advisory Board, 37236 2016-13677 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37476 2016-12970 NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Boone County, WV, 37236-37237 2016-13640 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37342-37363 2016-12913
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 37366-37367 2016-12914
U.S. Sentencing United States Sentencing Commission NOTICES Proposed Priorities for Amendment Cycle, 37241-37242 2016-13681 Requests for Nominations: Practitioners Advisory Group, 37240-37241 2016-13680 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Regulatory Information Service Center, 37244-37248 2016-12869 Part III Agriculture Department, 37250-37259 2016-12899 Part IV Commerce Department, 37262-37278 2016-12900 Part V Defense Department, 37280-37281 2016-12901 Part VI Education Department, 37284-37285 2016-12902 Part VII Energy Department, 37288-37291 2016-12903 Part VIII Health and Human Services Department, 37294-37306 2016-12904 Part IX Homeland Security Department, 37308-37317 2016-12906 Part X Housing and Urban Development Department, 37320-37321 2016-12907 Part XI Interior Department, 37324-37327 2016-12908 Part XII Justice Department, 37330-37331 2016-12909 Part XIII Labor Department, 37334-37339 2016-12911 Part XIV Transportation Department, 37342-37363 2016-12913 Part XV Treasury Department, 37366-37367 2016-12914 Part XVI Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 37370-37371 2016-12919 Part XVII Environmental Protection Agency, 37374-37383 2016-12921 Part XVIII General Services Administration, 37386-37387 2016-12924 Part XIX National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 37390 2016-12925 Part XX Small Business Administration, 37392-37398 2016-12927 Part XXI Department of Defense, 37400-37405 2016-12928 General Services Administration, 37400-37405 2016-12928 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 37400-37405 2016-12928 Part XXII Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 37408-37409 2016-12930 Part XXIII Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 37412-37415 2016-12931 Part XXIV Consumer Product Safety Commission, 37418-37421 2016-12932 Part XXV Federal Communications Commission, 37424-37460 2016-12933 Part XXVI Federal Reserve System, 37462-37463 2016-12934 Part XXVII Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 37466-37468 2016-12959 Part XXVIII Securities and Exchange Commission, 37470-37473 2016-12968 Part XXIX Surface Transportation Board, 37476 2016-12970 Part XXX Presidential Documents, 37477-37483 2016-13851 2016-13863 2016-13866 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

81 111 Thursday, June 9, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service 7 CFR Part 1738 RIN 0572-AC06 Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees AGENCY:

Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule; confirmation.

SUMMARY:

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), hereinafter referred to as the Agency, is confirming the interim final rule published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2015, which amends its regulation for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (Broadband Loan Program).

DATES:

Effective June 9, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Adams, Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1590, Room 5151-S, Washington, DC 20250-1590. Telephone number: (202) 720-9554, Facsimile: (202) 720-0810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Since the inception of the Broadband Loan Program, the Agency has faced, and continues to face, significant challenges in delivering the program due to the following factors: (1) The significant number of applicants proposing to offer broadband service that are start-ups with limited resources; (2) the continual evolution of telecommunications technology; and (3) the associated higher costs of serving rural communities. With the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill), the Broadband Loan Program has been significantly modified, and was suspended while the Agency revised this regulation. Given that the program was unable to operate during the revision, the Agency published an interim rule on July 30, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 FR 45397) so that the program could immediately reopen. The Agency invited comments to guide its efforts in drafting the new procedures implementing the 2014 Farm Bill and received comments from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, WTA-Advocates for Rural Broadband and Mr. James Cook. These comments and the Agency's responses are summarized as follows:

Broadband Service and Broadband Lending Speed Definitions

Comment: Respondents commented that the definitions for Broadband Service, which sets the eligibility standard for an area, and Broadband Lending Speed, which sets the construction standard, are too low and should be raised to higher standards to be more in line with the current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) definition for broadband of 25 megabits downstream and 3 megabits upstream.

Response: As the respondents noted in their comments, the regulation establishes a process to change these definitions by publishing new requirements when a NOSA/NOFA is published opening up an application window. The Agency agrees that higher definitions would be beneficial to rural residents. However, when these definitions are set, it is not only the bandwidth requirement for rural areas that is considered but also the amount of funding that is available for any given application window. If a higher definition for bandwidth is used, more of the country then becomes eligible for funding. When limited funding is available, the Agency has to ensure that those funds are directed to the most unserved rural areas. The Agency will re-evaluate these requirements every time a NOSA/NOFA is published and set the standards accordingly.

Overbuilding

Comment: Respondents commented that the RUS investment should go into unserved areas and that the Agency count all terrestrial providers in the proposed service territory when determining area eligibility.

Response: RUS agrees that unserved areas should be the target of the program. To ensure that all terrestrial broadband providers are counted in an area where an application is being considered, RUS has developed a multi-layer approach to locate them. First, when an application is submitted, the proposed service territory maps will be posted online utilizing the RUS Mapping Tool and existing service providers may respond to the public notice. If three or more existing providers are identified in the area and they meet the minimum eligibility speeds, then that area is considered ineligible for funding. If no providers respond to the public notice, then the Agency will have its field staff visit the proposed service area and locate all broadband providers in the area. The field staff will contact these providers and request that they respond to the public notice.

Area Eligibility

Comment: One respondent suggested that instead of three incumbents making a service area ineligible for funding, that the requirement be changed to two incumbents. The respondent also suggested that the definition of broadband service be raised to the current FCC definition for broadband of 25 megabits downstream and three megabits upstream.

Response: Although there is merit in using a higher bandwidth definition to determine area eligibility, the requirement that three incumbents in an area make that area ineligible is a statutory requirement and cannot be changed. The regulation does allow for the eligibility definition to be changed and the Agency will consider higher speeds whenever a NOSA/NOFA is published. As stated previously, the Agency must also recognize the amount of funding that is available each time an application window is opened and will set the eligibility definition accordingly.

Affordable Rates

Comment: One commenter reiterated that broadband service in rural areas needs to be affordable.

Response: Applicants must complete a market survey and a competitive analysis of all providers in the proposed service area as part of the application. This ensures that price points are set at the proper level for the area in question and that the operation is sustainable. There is a balance between providing high quality broadband service and charging the appropriate rate. It must be recognized that in less dense population areas, it may be necessary to charge a higher rate to ensure the viability of the operation.

Affiliated Companies

Comment: One commenter proposed that affiliate or affiliated companies providing broadband service in the same proposed funded service area should be recognized as one incumbent service provider when considering if an area is eligible for funding.

Response: Each company that is providing broadband service in an area and meets the definition of an incumbent service provider will be counted as an incumbent service provider in determining the eligibility of an area. RUS cannot treat legally established companies properly acting as independent companies as the same entity.

Broadband Usage Restrictions

Comment: One commenter recommended that if a company has capped the amount of bandwidth that is allowed for a given period, that additional standards should be established in determining if this provider would be counted as an incumbent service provider when determining service eligibility.

Response: The Agency appreciates this suggestion and will consider it during the next revision to the regulation. The main goal of the program is to provide funding to areas that do not have any broadband service. Most companies that cap bandwidth have options where a consumer can buy more bandwidth at an additional cost.

Wireless Broadband Service

Comment: One commenter recommended that wireless solutions for broadband service should be validated during busy hour/busy time when determining if the wireless provider meets the definition for an incumbent service provide when determining area eligibility.

Response: There are many levels of providing broadband service and a number of ways for determining this. The Agency has elected to use advertised broadband rates that are being sold and to validate that this level of service is being provided in an area. We will consider implementing additional tests the next time the regulation is revised. If tests of this nature are implemented for wireless service providers then corresponding tests will have to be implemented for wireline service providers.

The Agency appreciates the interest of the commenters and thanks them for their comment submissions.

The Rural Utilities Service did not receive any significant adverse comments during the public comment period on the interim rule, and therefore confirms the rule without change.

PART 1738—RURAL BROADBAND ACCESS LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 1738 which was published at 80 FR 45397 on July 30, 2015, is adopted as a final rule without change.

Dated: May 26, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-13302 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4233; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-003-AD; Amendment 39-18540; AD 2016-11-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BLANIK LIMITED Gliders AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 99-19-33 for BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders (type certificate previously held by LET Aeronautical Works). This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 14, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of November 8, 1999 (64 FR 50440, September 17, 1999).

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4233; or in person at the 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 service information identified in this AD, contact BLANIK LIMITED, 2nd Floor Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street Lower, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland; phone: +420 733 662 194; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.blanik.aero/%EF%BB%BFcustomer_support. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2016-4233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; 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 BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11473), and proposed to supersede AD 99-19-33, Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR 50440; September 17, 1999) (“AD 99-19-33”).

The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:

Colour marking of elevator drive is not inspected or re-painted during sailplane operation. The elevator drive is asymmetrical and improper installation causes significant elevator deflection changes.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-4233-0003.

A review of records since issuance of AD 99-19-33 revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders. This AD would supersede AD 99-19-13 to add the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders to the applicability of the AD.

The FAA is addressing the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders in another AD action.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 11473, March 4, 2016) 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 the 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 (81 FR 11473, March 4, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11473, March 4, 2016).

Related Service Information

We reviewed LET Aeronautical Works LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998. The service information describes procedures for painting the left arm of the elevator drive. 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 of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 124 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $11,780, or $95 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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.

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-2016-4233; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 removing Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR 50440, September 17, 1999) and adding the following new AD: 2016-11-13 BLANIK LIMITED: Amendment 39-18540; Docket No. FAA-2016-4233; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-003-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 14, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 99-19-33, Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR 50440; September 17, 1999) (“AD 99-19-33”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders (type certificate previously held by LET Aeronautical Works), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent backward installation of the elevator drive, which could cause significant elevator deflection changes and lead to loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:

(1) Model L-13 Blanik gliders:

(i) Within the next 3 calendar months after November 8, 1999 (the effective date retained from AD 99-19-33), paint the elevator drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.

(ii) As of November 8, 1999 (the effective date retained from AD 99-19-33), only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD and that has been properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.

(2) Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders:

(i) Within the next 3 calendar months after July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), paint the elevator drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.

(ii) As of July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD and that has been properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA-AD-4-099/98, dated December 30, 1998, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-4233-0003.

(i) 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.

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 8, 1999 (64 FR 50440, September 17, 1999).

(i) LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact BLANIK LIMITED, 2nd Floor Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street Lower, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland; phone: +420 733 662 194; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.blanik.aero/%EF%BB%BFcustomer_support.

(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4233.

(6) 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on May 20, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12591 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4230; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-041-AD; Amendment 39-18539; AD 2016-11-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Gliders AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2000-20-12 for EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.). This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient material strength of the tail-fuselage attachment fitting. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 14, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 2000 (65 FR 61262, October 17, 2000).

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4230; or in person at the 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 service information identified in this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2016-4230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; 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 EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11465), and proposed to supersede AD 2000-20-12, Amendment 39-11923 (65 FR 61262, October 17, 2000).

The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:

To prevent destruction of tail-fuselage attachment fitting which can lead to loss of control of the sailplane. This destruction could be caused due to lower strength of the material used during production.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-4230-0003.

A review of records since issuance of AD 2000-20-12 revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders. This AD supersedes AD 2000-20-12 to add the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders to the applicability of the AD.

The FAA is addressing the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders in another AD action.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 11465, March 4, 2016) 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 the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We identified that we inadvertently included a parts cost for the initial inspection in the NPRM (81 FR 11465, March 4, 2016), and we removed that parts cost from this final rule AD action. The basic estimated cost for U.S. operators remains the same. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11465, March 4, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11465, March 4, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a, dated November 18, 1999. The service information describes procedures for testing the material strength of attachment fitting part number A 102 021N and instructions for contacting the manufacturer for replacement information if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $3,060, or $340 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing $500, for a cost of $1,860 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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 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.

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-2016-4230; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 removing Amendment 39-11923 (65 FR 61262; October 17, 2000) and adding the following new AD: 2016-11-12 EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o.: Amendment 39-18539; Docket No. FAA-2016-4230; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-041-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 14, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2000-20-12, Amendment 39-11923 (65 FR 61262; October 17, 2000) (“AD 2000-20-12”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient material strength of the tail-fuselage attachment fitting. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct tail-fuselage fittings with insufficient material strength, which if left uncorrected could result in detachment of the tail from the fuselage with consequent loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:

(1) Model L 13 SEH VIVAT gliders:

(i) Within the next 60 days after November 27, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 2000-20-12), inspect the tail-fuselage attachment fitting, part number (P/N) A 102 021N, for damage and material hardness following the procedures in AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a, dated November 18, 1999.

(ii) If you find the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in the service bulletin during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact the manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved replacement part for P/N A 102 021N and FAA-approved installation instructions and install the replacement part. Use the contact information found in paragraph (i)(4) to contact the manufacturer.

(iii) As of November 27, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 2000-20-12), do not install, on any glider, a P/N A 102 021N attachment fitting that has not passed the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD.

(2) Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders:

(i) Within the next 60 days after July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the tail-fuselage attachment fitting, P/N A 102 021N, for damage and material hardness following the procedures in AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a, dated November 18, 1999.

(ii) If you find the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in the service bulletin during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact the manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved replacement part for P/N A 102 021N and FAA-approved installation instructions and install the replacement part. Use the contact information found in paragraph (i)(4) to contact the manufacturer.

(iii) As of July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), do not install, on any glider, a P/N A 102 021N attachment fitting that has not passed the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA-AD-T-112/1999R1, dated November 23, 1999, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-4230-0003.

(i) 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.

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 27, 2000 (65 FR 61262, October 17, 2000).

(i) AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a, dated November 18, 1999.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support.

(5) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4230.

(6) 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on May 20, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12601 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0149; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWA-8] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class C Airspace; Billings Logan International Airport, MT AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends geographic coordinates of Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT, under Class C airspace, due to recent surveys of the airport. This action does not change the boundaries or operating requirements of the airspace.

DATES:

Effective date 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

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 updates the geographic coordinates of Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT.

History

During a review of the airspace for Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT, the FAA identified that the airport's geographic coordinates were incorrect. This action updates the geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database for the respective Class C airspace area.

Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class C airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class C airspace at Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT, by adjusting the geographic coordinates to reflect recent survey data.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000 Class C Airspace.

ANM MT C Billings, MT [Amended] Billings Logan International Airport, MT

(Lat. 45°48′28″ N., long. 108°32′34″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,700 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Billings Logan International Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 4,900 feet MSL to and including 7,700 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of the airport.

Issued in Washington, DC, on, June 1, 2016. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2016-13553 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4452; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWA-7] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class C Airspace; Capital Region International Airport, MI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies the Lansing, MI, Class C airspace at the Capital Region International Airport, formerly the Lansing Capital City Airport, by removing a cutout from the surface area that was put in place to accommodate operations at an airport that is now permanently closed. This action also updates the Capital Region International Airport name and geographic coordinates to reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA is taking this action to ensure the safe and efficient operations at Capital Region International Airport.

DATES:

Effective date 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/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 7400.9Z at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

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 the 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 modifies a portion of the terminal airspace structure at Capital Region International Airport, Lansing, MI.

History

On November 27, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Class C airspace at Capital Region International Airport, MI (80 FR 74061) Docket No. FAA-2015-4452. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Capital Region International Airport Class C airspace area by removing the cutout from the Class C surface area that excluded the airspace within a 1-mile radius of the former Davis Airport and the airspace 1 mile either side of the 090° bearing from the former Davis Airport. The exclusion from the Class C surface area was in place solely to accommodate operations at Davis Airport, which closed in 2000 and was removed from the FAA's aeronautical database in 2006. Since the original purpose of the exclusion no longer exists, the FAA is removing the words “. . . excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of the Davis Airport and excluding that airspace 1 mile either side of the 090° bearing from Davis Airport to the 5-mile radius from Capital City Airport . . .” from the Class C airspace description.

This action also updates the Capital Region International Airport name and geographic coordinates in the Lansing, MI, Class C airspace description to reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database. Specifically, this action replaces “Capital City Airport” with “Capital Region International Airport” and replaces “lat. 42°46′43″ N., long. 84°35′15″ W.” with “lat. 42°46′43″ N., long. 84°35′10″ W.”

Class C airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class C airspace modification in this action will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 4000 Class C Airspace. AGL MI C Lansing, MI [Amended] Capital Region International Airport, MI (Lat. 42°46′43″ N., long. 84°35′10″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,900 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Capital Region International Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 2,100 feet MSL to and including 4,900 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of Capital Region International Airport.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2016. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2016-13551 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2013-0019] 16 CFR Part 1227 Revisions to Safety Standard for Carriages and Strollers AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”), also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) has published consumer product safety standards for numerous durable infant or toddler products, including a safety standard for carriages and strollers. The standard incorporated by reference the ASTM voluntary standard for carriages and strollers, with a modification. In August 2011, Congress enacted a public law, which sets forth a process for updating standards that the Commission has issued under the authority of section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In accordance with that process, we are publishing this direct final rule, revising the CPSC's standard for carriages and strollers to incorporate by reference a more recent version of the applicable ASTM standard.

DATES:

The rule is effective on October 2, 2016, unless we receive significant adverse comment by July 11, 2016. If we receive timely significant adverse comments, we will publish notification in the Federal Register, withdrawing this direct final rule before its effective date. The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-0019, by any of the following methods:

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov.

Submit written submissions in the following way:

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this document. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information related to the carriages and strollers standard, contact: Rana Balci-Sinha, Director, Division of Human Factors, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-2584; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. The law requires that these standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. On March 10, 2014, the Commission published a final rule issuing a standard for carriages and strollers that incorporated by reference the standard in effect at that time, ASTM F833-13b, with a modification to address potential hazardous openings created by adjustable grab bar/tray and foot rest configurations. 79 FR 13208. The standard was codified in the Commission's regulations at 16 CFR part 1227.

Public Law 112-28. On August 12, 2011, Congress enacted Public Law 112-28, amending and revising several provisions of the CPSIA, including the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. The revised provision sets forth a process for updating CPSC's durable infant or toddler standards when the voluntary standard upon which the CPSC standard was based is changed.

If an organization revises a standard that has been adopted, in whole or in part, as a consumer product safety standard under this subsection, the Commission must be notified. The statute further provides that the revised voluntary standard shall be considered to be a consumer product safety standard issued by the Commission under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the date on which the organization notifies the Commission (or such later date specified by the Commission in the Federal Register) unless, within 90 days after receiving that notice, the Commission notifies the organization that it has determined that the proposed revision does not improve the safety of the consumer product covered by the standard and that the Commission is retaining the existing consumer product safety standard. Public Law 112-28, section 3.

Notification of Revisions. On April 5, 2016, ASTM notified the CPSC of ASTM's approval and publication of revisions to ASTM F833-13b in a revised standard approved on November 1, 2015, ASTM F833-15, Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Carriages and Strollers (ASTM F833-15). As discussed below, the Commission has reviewed the differences between 16 CFR part 1227 and ASTM F833-15.

B. Revisions to the ASTM Standard

There are several differences between 16 CFR part 1227 (which references ASTM F833-13b) and the revised version of the standard, ASTM F833-15. We summarize the differences and the CPSC's assessment of the revisions below.

Definition of Convertible Car Seat/Stroller. The 2015 version of the ASTM standard adds a definition for a “convertible car seat/stroller” to clarify the distinction between a convertible car seat/stroller (i.e., a car seat with wheels and a handle that can convert to a stroller) and a combined unit of a car seat on a stroller. The definition is referenced in a revised section regarding convertible car seat/strollers, which allows an exemption for restraints used in motor vehicles.

CPSC staff's review shows that the addition of a definition for “convertible car seat/stroller” adds clarity to the revised standard because this definition is used in a revised section regarding performance requirements for combination units of a car seat on a stroller and convertible car seat/stroller. The addition of this definition is neutral regarding safety.

Definitions of Tray/Grab BarLocking and Stop Positions. The 2015 version of the ASTM standard adds two new definitions that describe locking and stop positions of the tray/grab bar. These definitions are then referenced in revised sections clarifying the performance requirement and test methods associated with passive containment/foot opening.

CPSC staff's review shows that the addition of definitions for tray/grab bar locking and stop positions improve clarity to the revised standard because these definitions are used in revised sections for performance requirements and test methods applicable to passive containment/foot openings. The addition of these definitions is neutral regarding safety.

Requirements for Static Load Associated with Step/Footrest. The 2015 version of the ASTM standard repeats a requirement that any step or footrest on a stroller shall support a static load of 50 lbs under the performance requirements section, as well as under the test methods for static load.

CPSC staff's review shows that the addition of a separate section repeating the static load requirement adds clarity to the revised standard because the provision is equally applicable to both the performance requirement and test method sections. The addition of this section is neutral regarding safety.

Requirements for Combination Unit of a Car Seat on a Stroller and Convertible Car Seat/Stroller. The 2015 version of the standard allows products that are used as a car seat and that can convert to a stroller using the same restraint as the car seat, to be exempt from the stroller restraint system anchor points and crotch strap location requirements. The restraint systems for car seats sold in the United States are regulated under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213).

CPSC staff's review shows that adding the exemption for a restraint system that is certified to restrain a child in a motor vehicle is neutral regarding safety because the restraint systems must comply with the FMVSS requirements. In addition, aside from the restraint system, the combination unit of a car seat on a stroller must still comply with all of the other applicable requirements when the car seat is installed in all of the manufacturer's recommended use positions.

Requirements for Passive Containment/Foot Opening, Testing Tray/Grab Bar Locking Positions, and Testing Tray/Grab Bar Positions. The 2015 version of the standard requires testing of all applicable positions of the adjustable grab bar/tray that may create a hazardous opening. These positions consist of locking positions (including positions intended for non-occupant use), as well as stop positions (not a locking position but a position where tray/grab bar can remain stationary when a 5 lb force is applied for 10 seconds).

CPSC staff's review shows that the revisions improve the safety of the standard set forth in 16 CFR part 1227 to address hazardous openings created by adjustable grab bar/tray and foot rest configurations. In its regulation, the CPSC required that tests be conducted in the position “most likely to cause failure.” See 16 CFR 1227.2(b). The 2015 version of the standard provides additional clarity indicating that the test has to be repeated, depending on the number of adjustments that can be made in the grab bar/tray, as well as footrest or calf support positions. The revised test method is a clearer test and will improve the safety of the standard because all potentially hazardous openings will be evaluated.

Warning Statements for Jogging Strollers. The 2015 version of the standard clarifies the warning label requirements associated with strollers that have a removable-wheel fork assembly and strollers that are three-wheeled with a locking front wheel and are intended to be used for running, jogging, or walking fast, requiring the units to display the warning label. The warning content remains unchanged.

CPSC staff's review shows that the revisions on the warning label requirements improve the safety of strollers. The version referenced in 16 CFR part 1227, ASTM F833-13b, could be interpreted to require warning labels only on jogging strollers with a removable-wheel fork assembly. The 2015 version of the standard clarifies that the warning label requirements apply to: (1) Any stroller with a removable wheel fork assembly for the label that is placed on the front wheel fork; and (2) any three-wheeled stroller intended to be used while jogging, walking fast, or running with a locking front wheel. Accordingly, the revised standard makes clear that all of these types of three-wheeled strollers must display warning labels.

Assessment of the Revisions to the ASTM Standard. Under Public Law 112-28, unless the Commission determines that ASTM's revision “does not improve the safety of the consumer product covered by the standard,” ASTM F833-15 will become the new mandatory standard for carriages and strollers. As discussed above, based on the CPSC staff's review, the Commission believes that certain revisions are neutral regarding safety. However, other revisions will improve the safety of standard, including the clarifications to the testing for adjustable grab bar/tray and foot rest configurations and warning labels. Consequently, the Commission did not determine or notify ASTM that the revised standard does not improve the safety of carriages and strollers.

In accordance with Public Law 112-28, the revised ASTM standard for carriages and strollers, therefore, becomes the new CPSC standard 180 days after the date the CPSC received notification of the revision from ASTM. This rule revises the incorporation by reference at 16 CFR part 1227, to reference the ASTM standard, ASTM F833-15.

C. Direct Final Rule Process

The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Commission concludes that, in the context of these revisions to ASTM standards upon which CPSC's durable infant or toddler product standards are based, which automatically become consumer product standards and that simply would be incorporated by reference into applicable regulatory provisions, notice and comment is not necessary.

Without Commission action to update the incorporation by reference in the CPSC's mandated standards, the standard published in the Code of Federal Regulations will not reflect the revised ASTM standard that will be in effect by operation of law under Public Law 112-28. For accuracy, and to avoid misleading the public about the applicable consumer product standard, the Commission believes that issuing a rule revising the incorporation by reference in these circumstances is appropriate. In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (“ACUS”) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment. See 60 FR 43108 (August 18, 1995). Consistent with the ACUS recommendation, the Commission is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because we do not expect any significant adverse comments.

Revising the regulatory reference to the ASTM standard will conform the regulation to the substantive change in the applicable consumer product standard that will occur by operation of law under Public Law 112-28. Public comment will not impact the substantive changes to the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety standard under Public Law 112-28. Therefore, there is little for the public to comment upon.

Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on October 2, 2016. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change.

Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.

D. Effective Date

Under the procedure set forth in Public Law 112-28, when a voluntary standard organization revises a standard upon which a consumer product safety standard issued under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act was based, the revision becomes the CPSC standard within 180 days of notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product, or the Commission sets a later date in the Federal Register. In accordance with this provision, this rule establishes an effective date that is 180 days after we received notification from ASTM of revisions to these standards. As discussed in the preceding section, this is a direct final rule. Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on October 2, 2016.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The change to the incorporation by reference in the carriages and stroller standard will not result in any substantive changes to the standard. Therefore, this rule will not have any economic impact on small entities.

F. Environmental Considerations

The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The carriages and stroller standard contain information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). No changes have been made to that section of the standard. Thus, these revisions will not have any effect on the information collection requirements related to that standard.

H. Preemption

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances.

The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act (at section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA) refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety standards,” thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.

I. Certification

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program or, for children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accredited by the Commission to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted in the preceding discussion, standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.

Because carriages and strollers are children's products, samples of these products must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the Commission. These products also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements of section 101 of the CPSIA, the tracking label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer registration form requirements in the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act.

J. Notice of Requirements

In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the CPSIA, the Commission has previously published a notice of requirements (“NOR”) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing carriages and strollers (79 FR 13208 (March 10, 2014)). The NORs provided the criteria and process for our acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing carriages and strollers to 16 CFR part 1227 (which incorporated ASTM F833-13b with modifications). The NORs are listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.” 16 CFR part 1112.

The revisions discussed above do not add any new provisions that would require a third party conformity assessment body (testing laboratory) to conduct additional tests. As discussed above, most of the revisions clarify the existing standard and will not change existing test methods. Although the test method associated with passive containment/foot opening has been clarified to require testing depending on the number of adjustments that can be made in the grab bar/tray as well as footrest or calf support positions, the revision is not expected to affect how a test laboratory tests strollers and convertible carriages/strollers in a stroller mode. Revising the reference to ASTM F833-15 for the carriages and stroller standard will not necessitate any change in the way that third party conformity assessment bodies test these products for compliance to CPSC standards. Therefore, the Commission considers the existing accreditations that the Commission has accepted for testing to this standard also to cover testing to the revised standard. The existing NOR for this standards will remain in place, and CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies are expected to update the scope of the testing laboratories' accreditation to reflect the revised standard in the normal course of renewing their accreditation.

K. Incorporation by Reference

The OFR has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble of the final rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section B of this preamble summarizes the ASTM F833-15 standard that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1227. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties and interested parties may purchase a copy of the standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA, phone: 610-832-9585; http://www.astm.org/. A copy of the standard can also be inspected at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1227

Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety, Toys.

For the reasons stated above, the Commission amends title 16 CFR chapter II as follows:

PART 1227—SAFETY STANDARD FOR CARRIAGES AND STROLLERS 1. The authority citation for part 1227 continues to read as follows: Authority:

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-314, 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Public Law 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).

2. Revise § 1227.2 to read as follows:
§ 1227.2 Requirements for carriages and strollers.

Each carriage and stroller shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F833-15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Carriages and Strollers, approved November 1, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference listed in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of this ASTM standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA; phone: 610-832-9585; http://www.astm.org/. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or 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/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

Dated: June 8, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-13663 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 249 [Release No. 34-77969; File No. S7-09-16] RIN 3235-AL89 Form 10-K Summary AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Interim final rule; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting an interim final amendment to implement Section 72001 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (“FAST”) Act. The interim final amendment provides that a registrant may, at its option, include a summary in its Form 10-K provided that each item in the summary includes a cross-reference by hyperlink to the material contained in the registrant's Form 10-K to which such item relates.

DATES:

Effective Date: The interim final rule is effective on June 9, 2016.

Comment Date: Comments should be received on or before July 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/interim-final-temp.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number S7-09-16 on the subject line; or

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

Paper Comments

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-09-16. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/interim-final-temp.shtml). Comments are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

N. Sean Harrison, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3430, in the Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

We are adopting an interim final amendment to Form 10-K 1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.2

1 17 CFR 249.310.

2 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.

I. Introduction

We are adopting an interim final amendment to Form 10-K that implements Section 72001 of the FAST Act,3 which became law on December 4, 2015. Section 72001 of the FAST Act directs the Commission, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, to issue regulations to permit “issuers” 4 to submit a “summary page” 5 on Form 10-K, but only if each item on such summary page includes a cross-reference (by electronic link or otherwise) to the material contained in Form 10-K to which such item relates.

3 Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (Dec. 4, 2015).

4 We use the terms “issuer” and “registrant” interchangeably throughout this release to refer to a company that is subject to Section 13 [15 U.S.C. 78m] or 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78o(d)] and is required to file an annual report on Form 10-K.

5 As used in this release, the term “summary page” should not be construed to mean that the summary needs to be a single page, or of any specific length.

II. Discussion of Amendment

Although our current rules do not prohibit a registrant from including voluntary information, such as a summary, in its Form 10-K,6 we are amending Part IV of Form 10-K 7 to add new Item 16. This new item will expressly allow a registrant, at its option, to include a summary in the Form 10-K. To implement the statutory requirement that each item in the summary be accompanied by an electronic or other cross-reference, new Item 16 requires that each summary topic be hyperlinked to the related, more detailed disclosure item in the Form 10-K.

6 Voluntary information included in Exchange Act filings is subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and the officer certifications required by Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) [17 CFR 240.13a-14(a) and 240.15d-14(a)].

7 Part IV of Form 10-K sets forth the requirements for financial statement schedules, exhibits and certain supplemental information to be furnished to the Commission.

In light of the varied nature of registrants' size and operations, we believe that registrants should have the flexibility to determine how best to prepare the summary. Accordingly, the amendment does not prescribe the length of the summary (other than to state that the summary shall be brief), specify the Form 10-K disclosure items that should be covered by the summary,8 or dictate where the summary must appear in the Form10-K.

8 Form 10-K is organized in four parts with each part containing distinct disclosure requirements. Part I (Items 1-4) contains disclosure requirements that relate to, among other things, the registrant's business, risk factors, properties, legal proceedings, and mine safety disclosure, if applicable. Part II (Items 5-9B) contains disclosure requirements that relate to market information, selected financial data, management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations (“MD&A”), quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk, financial statements and supplementary data, a description of changes in and disagreements with accountants on accounting and financial disclosure, controls and procedures and other information. Part III (Items 10-14) contains disclosure requirements that relate to directors and executive officers, management remuneration, beneficial ownership, related party transactions and principal accountants' fees and services and other information. Lastly, Part IV (Item 15, signatures and supplemental information) contains requirements that relate to financial statement schedules and exhibits.

We recognize that it might not be practicable or necessary to summarize every Form 10-K disclosure item. The amendment is principles-based and affords a registrant choosing to include a summary the flexibility to decide which items to summarize,9 as long as the information is presented fairly and accurately.

9 The flexible and non-prescriptive nature of new Item 16 is similar to other principles-based requirements under our rules, such as Item 503 Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.503] and Item 1001 of Regulation M-A [17 CFR 229.1001]. As set forth below in the Request for Comment, we solicit and encourage comment on whether further guidance on preparing the summary should be provided.

We are also including an instruction in Item 16 of Form 10-K that addresses information incorporated by reference into the Form 10-K that a registrant may choose to summarize. Exchange Act Rule 12b-23 allows registrants to incorporate information by reference in answer, or partial answer, to any item of an Exchange Act registration statement or report subject to certain conditions.10 Generally, the incorporated information must be filed as an exhibit to the registration statement or report.11 Under General Instruction G to Form 10-K, a registrant may incorporate by reference the information required by Parts I or II of Form 10-K from the registrant's annual report to security holders.12 The information required by Part III of Form 10-K also may be incorporated by reference from a proxy or information statement involving the election of directors, if filed within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year.13

10 17 CFR 240.12b-23.

11 Rule 12b-23(a)(3)(i) [17CFR 240.12b-23(a)(3)(i)] provides an exception that does not require a proxy or information statement incorporated by reference in response to Part III of Form 10-K to be filed as an exhibit.

12 Information incorporated from the annual report to security holders to fulfill the requirements of Part I of Form 10-K must contain the information required by Items 1-3 of Part I of Form 10-K to the extent applicable. See Note 1 to General Instruction G(2) to Form 10-K.

13See Note 2 to General Instruction G(2) to Form 10-K.

As stated above, the interim final amendment to Form 10-K requires the summary to include hyperlinks to the related, more detailed disclosure item in the Form 10-K, regardless of whether the more detailed disclosure appears in the sections of the Form 10-K that follow the summary or in a Form 10-K exhibit. Currently, registrants can hyperlink to different sections within the same document, as well as to specific sections of exhibits that are part of the same filing.

Therefore, the interim final amendment requires registrants electing to prepare a Form 10-K summary that discusses information that is incorporated by reference into the Form 10-K and for which an exhibit is filed with the form to include a hyperlink from the summary to the discussion in the accompanying exhibit. Under the interim final amendment, a registrant choosing to include a summary will only be able to summarize information that is included in the Form 10-K at the time the form is filed, and will not have to file a Form 10-K amendment to summarize Part III information that is incorporated by reference from a proxy or information statement that will be filed after the date that the registrant files its Form 10-K.14 In that case, however, the registrant must indicate that the summary omits the Part III information.

14See Instruction 1 to new Item 16 of Form 10-K. In addition, if the Part III information that is incorporated by reference contains a summary, such as commonly provided in proxy statements for executive compensation disclosure, that summary need not include hyperlinks.

Request for Comment

We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments on any aspect of the interim final amendment, other matters that might have an impact on the amendment, and any suggestions for further revisions. In addition, we seek comment on the following:

1. Are companies and investors likely to find a Form 10-K summary useful? If so, should we propose mandating a summary? 15

15 In 2008, the Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting issued to the Commission a report that, among other things, recommended an executive summary in the forepart of a company's annual report on Form 10-K (with material updates in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q) that would describe concisely the most important themes or other significant matters with which management is primarily concerned, along with a page index showing where investors could find more detailed information in the document. See Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (Aug. 1, 2008), available at https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oca/acifr/acifr-finalreport.pdf.

2. Would it be helpful to EDGAR users for the Form 10-K summary or a link to the summary to be displayed on a registrant's EDGAR search results landing page? 16

16 We are considering ways to further enhance the presentation and usability of the Form 10-K summary. In this regard, we could require registrants to include HTML tags to identify the Form 10-K summary in their EDGAR submissions. This would make it possible for EDGAR to extract the summary from the Form 10-K, so that the information could be included on the registrant's search results EDGAR landing page. This could allow investors to more easily access the information.

3. Should we impose a length limitation on the summary? If so, what limitation would be appropriate (e.g., a page limit, word limit, character limit)?

4. Should we provide further guidance on preparation of the summary? For example, should we include language similar to Item 503(a) of Regulation S-K, which covers a prospectus summary? 17

17 Among other provisions, Item 503(a) states “The summary should be brief. The summary should not contain, and is not required to contain, all of the detailed information in the prospectus. If you provide summary business or financial information, even if you do not caption it as a summary, you still must provide that information in plain English.”

5. Should we require that the summary appear at the beginning of the Form 10-K? Should we require certain content or a specific format for the Form 10-K summary? For example, should we propose to require registrants choosing to prepare a summary to include specified Form 10-K items, such as the MD&A? Are there some items that registrants should not be permitted to include in a summary? If so, which items should be required to be included in, or excluded from, the summary?

6. Should we require registrants that cannot include a summary of the Part III information (because that information will be incorporated by reference from a later filed proxy or information statement involving the election of directors) to file a Form 10-K amendment to update the summary to reflect the Part III information when that information is filed with the proxy or information statement?

7. Are there other cross-reference methods that we should allow in lieu of, or in addition to, hyperlinks?

8. Should we propose to amend other annual reporting forms, such as Form 20-F 18 filed by foreign private issuers, or Form 1-K 19 filed by issuers that have conducted a Regulation A offering,20 to expressly allow a summary similar to the approach we are adopting for Form 10-K? Would such revisions be useful given that our rules do not prohibit such registrants from voluntarily including a summary in their annual reports?

18 17 CFR 249.220f.

19 17 CFR 239.93.

20 17 CFR 230.251-230.263.

With respect to any comments, we note that they are of greatest assistance if accompanied by supporting data and analysis of the issues addressed in those comments.

III. Procedural and Other Matters

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment. This requirement does not apply, however, if the agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 21 Because the amendment conforms the specified form to the requirements of a newly enacted statute, the FAST Act, and involves minimal exercise of discretion, the Commission finds that notice and public comment are unnecessary.22 As discussed above, Section 72001 of the FAST Act directs the Commission, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, to issue regulations to permit issuers to submit a summary page on Form 10-K, but only if each item on such summary page includes a cross-reference (by electronic link or otherwise) to the material contained in Form 10-K to which such item relates. The amendment to Form 10-K that we are adopting revises the form to make it consistent with this provision of the FAST Act by expressly providing that a registrant may, at its option, include a summary in its Form 10-K (subject to certain conditions), something that registrants currently are permitted to do under existing rules.

21 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

22 This finding also satisfies the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 808(2), allowing the amendment to become effective notwithstanding the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 (if a federal agency finds that notice and public comment are impractical, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, a rule shall take effect at such time as the federal agency promulgating the rule determines). The amendment also does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a) (requiring a final regulatory flexibility analysis only for rules required by the APA or other law to undergo notice and comment).

For similar reasons, although the APA generally requires publication of a rule at least 30 days before its effective date, the Commission finds there is good cause for the amendment to take effect on June 9, 2016.23

23See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

IV. Economic Analysis

As discussed above, we are amending Form 10-K to implement Section 72001 of the FAST Act. The interim final amendment will provide that a registrant may, at its option, include a summary in its Form 10-K provided that each item in the summary includes a cross-reference by hyperlink to the material contained in the registrant's Form 10-K to which such item relates. Under the amendment, a registrant will have the flexibility to determine the content of the summary and its length.

We are sensitive to the costs and benefits of the amendment.24 In this economic analysis, we examine the existing baseline, which consists of the current regulatory framework and market practices, and discuss the potential benefits and costs of the amendment, relative to this baseline, and its potential effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. We also consider the potential costs and benefits of reasonable alternatives to the amendment.

24 Exchange Act Section 23(a)(2) requires us, when adopting rules, to consider the impact that any new rule would have on competition. In addition, Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act directs us, when engaging in rulemaking that requires us to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

Where practicable, we attempt to quantify the economic effects of the amendment; however, in certain cases, we are unable to do so because we lack the necessary data. We do, however, provide a qualitative assessment of the likely economic effects.

A. Introduction

As discussed above, new Item 16 to Form 10-K provides that a registrant may, at its option, include a summary in its Form 10-K provided that each item in the summary includes a hyperlink to the detailed information in the registrant's Form 10-K to which such item relates. In light of the varied nature of registrants' size and operations, the amendment will provide registrants with flexibility in preparing the summary. The amendment does not prescribe the length of the summary, specify the Form 10-K disclosure items that should be covered in the summary, or dictate where the summary must appear in the Form 10-K.

A registrant may decide which items to summarize as long as the information is presented fairly and accurately. A summary should provide more information than a table of contents, which is often included in Form 10-K and generally shows the complete organizational structure of Form 10-K by listing each disclosure item without a summary of the disclosure. A summary with hyperlinked cross-references will allow users to easily locate the corresponding items in Form 10-K where the disclosure is fully presented, with the potential effect of enhancing the ability of investors and other users of the disclosure to process relevant information and/or reducing their processing time and search costs.

B. Baseline and Affected Parties

The amendment will potentially affect all registrants subject to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act that are required to file an annual report on Form 10-K. However, given that current rules do not prohibit a registrant from voluntarily including a summary in its Form 10-K, the amendment likely will not have a substantial impact on the disclosure practices of registrants and on the information processing ability of investors and other users of the disclosure.

In particular, we expect that registrants that do not currently include a summary in their Form 10-Ks will not be likely to begin doing so in response to the amendment. Also, registrants that currently include a summary in their Form 10-K with a hyperlink for each disclosure topic in the summary to the related material contained in their Form 10-K will not be affected by the amendment because this practice will be in compliance with the hyperlink requirement. Among the registrants that are required to file a Form 10-K, the amendment will affect registrants that currently include a summary in their Form 10-Ks and that (1) do not cross-reference items; (2) use cross-references other than hyperlinks; or (3) use hyperlinks but not for all disclosure topics included in the summary. Under the amendment, if these registrants chose to continue to include a summary in their Form 10-K, they will be required to include hyperlinks to each disclosure topic that is mentioned.

We estimate that, in calendar year 2015, we received 7,844 Form 10-K filings. To draw a baseline indicative of the current disclosure practices among Form 10-K filers, we selected a random sample of 150 of these filings to review. Although small, the random sample was representative of the overall 2015 population of Form 10-K filers and consisted of 42 large accelerated filers, 29 accelerated filers, 27 non-accelerated filers, and 52 smaller reporting companies. None of the filings in the sample included a summary. A large majority (70%) of the 150 sampled filings included a table of contents that was fully hyperlinked to the corresponding items.

Due to the greater complexity of their operations, larger registrants generally have more extensive disclosures that are reflected in lengthier Form 10-Ks and may be more inclined to include a summary to assist investors and other users in navigating their filings.25 Since we did not find any registrants in the random sample that included a summary in their Form 10-K, we also reviewed the most recent Form 10-K filed by each of the companies on the Fortune 100 list, which includes the largest 100 U.S. companies.26 Of these companies, we found one large accelerated filer that included a summary in its Form 10-K. This summary provided an overview of several disclosure topics with cross-references, but not hyperlinks, to the more detailed discussion contained in the Form 10-K. While we found only one registrant that included a summary in its most recent Form 10-K, we found that a large majority of the companies (87%) included a table of contents that was fully hyperlinked to the corresponding items.

25 In addition to structural complexity, there may be other reasons for the length of disclosure documents. One study argues that firms may try to obscure mandated earnings-relevant information by burying the results in longer documents. Additionally, litigation risk may create an incentive to disclose information whether it is useful or not. See Tim Loughran & Bill McDonald, Measuring Readability in Financial Disclosures, 69 J. of FIN. 1643−1671 (2014).

26 Eight entities included in the Fortune 100 list are privately-held companies; therefore, no Form 10-K was available for them.

There may be several reasons why a summary is not widely used in Form 10-Ks. As with any other voluntary disclosure, registrants presumably weigh the potential incremental disclosure costs, including any liability considerations, against the potential benefits associated with including a summary in a Form 10-K. Among other factors, the perceived net benefit will depend on the presence of alternative disclosures that serve a similar purpose as a summary and on investor interest in such summary. For example, a table of contents may already provide an outline of the Form 10-K and indicate where investors can find additional information in the document.

In conclusion, based on our analysis of two relatively small samples of Form 10-K filings, it appears that the use of a summary in Form 10-Ks is currently extremely limited. While we cannot draw definite conclusions on the current use of a summary or on the current use of hyperlinks in summaries for the entire population of Form 10-K filers due to the size of the samples in our analysis, we believe that the amendment is likely to affect a limited number of Form 10-K filers that currently opt to include a summary in their Form 10-K. As a result of the hyperlink requirement, these filers will need to include a hyperlink for each disclosure topic that is not currently hyperlinked.

C. Potential Economic Effects

As noted above, Section 72001 of the FAST Act directs the Commission to issue regulations to permit registrants to submit a summary on Form 10-K with cross-references to the related discussion in the report. In implementing this mandate, the amendment will provide that registrants may include a summary in their Form 10-K if each item in the summary includes a hyperlink to the related material contained in the Form 10-K to which such item relates. Relative to cross-references that supply users with only a page reference to the specific Form 10-K items, hyperlinks will not only supply the location but also allow users to reach that location more easily and quickly.

By presenting an overview of the information contained in Form 10-K, a summary with hyperlinks could make disclosure more effective by enhancing the ability of investors and other users to process relevant information and/or by reducing their processing time and search costs. A summary can be particularly useful to investors and other users in the case of more complex 27 and larger 28 Form 10-Ks. Academic literature has examined the readability of Form 10 Ks and suggested that concisely written documents are more likely to be read, and their information more effectively incorporated into stock prices, compared to longer Form 10 Ks.29 To the extent that a summary contains a concise overview of the information included in the more detailed disclosure items, the usefulness of the summary for investors may translate into potential positive effects on allocative efficiency and capital formation for registrants who opt to include it.30 This, in turn, may have positive effects on competition for registrants, relative to, for example, registrants who do not opt to include a summary. For example, a summary could increase investors' interest in the business of a registrant because it may attract investors who otherwise would not be inclined to read the more detailed and lengthy information in the full Form 10-K. We note that, if users were to rely only on the summary to make investment decisions without considering the more extensive disclosure provided elsewhere in the Form 10-K or other disclosure documents of the registrant, this could lead to less informed investment decisions with a corresponding decrease in allocative efficiency. Overall, relative to the current baseline, we expect that the amendment will have incremental positive effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, although, for the reasons discussed above, we do not expect these effects to be particularly significant.

27See Feng Li, Annual Report Readability, Current Earnings, and Earnings Persistence, 45 J. of ACCT. & ECON. 221-47 (2008). Using the Fog index and word count of Form 10 Ks, the author found that firms with annual reports that are easier to read have more persistent positive earnings and argues that firm managers may try to hide poor future earnings from investors by increasing the complexity of their written documents. The Fog index is a commonly used measure of the readability of a document.

28See Loughran & McDonald, supra note 25. While word count and file size are highly correlated, the authors found there is evidence that Form 10-K file size (in megabytes) is a better inverse proxy for readability than a commonly used metric of readability like the Fog index. Larger Form 10-Ks are significantly associated with high return volatility, earnings forecast errors, and earnings forecast dispersion, after controlling for other variables such as firm size, book-to-market, past volatility, industry effects, and prior stock performance.

29See Haifeng You & Xiao-jun Zhang, Financial Reporting Complexity and Investor Under-Reaction to 10-K Information, 14 REV. of ACCT. STUD. 559−86 (2009). Using the number of words in a Form 10-K as a measure of financial reporting complexity, the authors found that firms above the annual median word count have a delayed stock market reaction over the following 12 months.

30See Alastair Lawrence, Individual Investors and Financial Disclosure, 56 J. of ACCT. & ECON. 130−47 (2013). Using detailed data of individual investors, this study shows that, on average, individuals invest more in firms with clear and concise financial disclosures.

Permitting registrants to determine the content, length, and location of a summary will enable them to tailor the format and presentation of the summary to best suit the specific aspects of their business and operational and financial results. It also will enable registrants to focus on topics or items they consider important to communicate to investors, subject to the overall requirement to present the summary fairly and accurately.

While a summary is potentially useful for investors and registrants, registrants who include a summary in their Form 10-Ks will incur increased disclosure costs to prepare the summary. As discussed above, given that Form 10-K filers can already voluntarily include a summary, we expect that, as a result of the amendment, registrants will not significantly change their disclosure practices by electing to include a summary if they currently do not.

Relative to the current baseline, we expect the potential benefits and costs stemming from the amendment to be limited and primarily related to those registrants—and their investors—who already include a summary in their Form 10-K but do not currently hyperlink or hyperlink only in part. Registrants that have voluntarily included a summary in the past and have not hyperlinked the items in the summary to the relevant sections in the Form 10-K will incur compliance costs to add hyperlinks.

There are potential benefits from adding cross-references to the Form 10-K summary. A summary that briefly discusses items in the Form 10-K without any type of cross-references may disconnect the information in the summary from the disclosure contained in other parts of Form 10-K. The required hyperlinks will serve not only as a reminder for investors that a summary complements the more extensive disclosure presented in other parts of the document, but also as a compass for users to navigate the document more easily and quickly. The required hyperlinks will easily direct users to a particular item, allowing users to avoid searching the Form 10-K in its entirety, thereby significantly reducing their search costs.

Relative to other types of cross-references that registrants may currently use, such as a footnote or plain text that points to a certain page number or location in the document, the inclusion of hyperlinks should direct users to relevant parts of Form 10-K more easily and quickly. To the extent that hyperlinks are implemented properly, they are able to automatically take the reader to that document or section. Cross-referencing through hyperlinks should make it easier for users to navigate the disclosure and decrease their search time and costs.

Finally, requiring hyperlinks for all topics in a summary that currently has only partial hyperlinks will prevent registrants from selectively steering investors and other users toward particular sections in the Form 10-K.

D. Alternatives

We considered three alternatives to the amendment. First, instead of providing registrants with the option of including a summary in their Form 10-K, we could have required all registrants to include a summary. By requiring a summary, investors and users could more extensively benefit from the potential usefulness of the summary. In particular, as discussed above, a summary could enhance investors' ability to process relevant material information in the filing. To the extent that a required summary contains useful and concise information, it could translate to potential positive effects on allocative efficiency for a greater number of registrants than under a voluntary approach. These potential benefits could be particularly relevant in the case of registrants with more complex operations that typically file larger reports that investors may find more time-consuming to read. They may be less relevant in the case of smaller registrants that typically have simpler operations and shorter Form 10-Ks. Consequently, requiring a mandatory summary for all registrants may impose additional compliance costs that are not justified by the overall benefits to investors and registrants, although the flexibility to determine the format of the summary could mitigate these additional compliance costs.

Second, instead of providing registrants with the flexibility to determine length, content, and location of the summary in Form 10-K, we could have prescribed a specific format of the summary. This could achieve consistency across filings and may enable users to compare the summaries of multiple registrants more efficiently. A specific format may also ease the preparation of a summary for some registrants, thereby encouraging them to provide a voluntary summary in their Form 10-Ks. At the same time, prescribing a specific format may discourage registrants from including a summary in their Form 10-K if they find the format not useful for their specific circumstances. Further, if the prescribed format includes sections that are unnecessary to effectively assess the registrant, it could detract from, rather than facilitate, investors' ability to process information efficiently.

Third, instead of requiring hyperlinks, we could have required registrants to use any type of cross-references, electronic or otherwise, to the extent that it would serve the function of locating the corresponding material in the Form 10-K.31 This alternative would allow greater flexibility to registrants to use either hyperlinks or non-electronic cross-references, such as footnotes or plain text that points to a certain page number or other location in the document, or a combination of the two types in the summary. However, to the extent that registrants choose to use non-electronic cross-references under this alternative, the ability of investors to navigate the disclosure contained in the Form 10-K would be diminished relative to the proposal.

31 Section 72001 of the FAST Act requires that each item on the summary page include a “cross-reference” to the material contained in the Form 10-K, but the statute does not mandate any particular type of cross-reference.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act A. Background

Certain provisions of Form 10-K that will be affected by the interim final amendment contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).32 The Commission is submitting the interim final amendment to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review in accordance with the PRA.33 The title for the collections of information is:

32 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

33 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.

“Form 10-K” (OMB Control No. 3235-0063).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Compliance with the information collections is mandatory. Responses to the information collections are not kept confidential and there is no mandatory retention period for the information disclosed. Form 10-K was adopted under the Exchange Act and sets forth the disclosure requirements for annual reports filed by registrants to help investors make informed investment decisions. The hours and costs associated with preparing and filing Form 10-K constitute reporting and cost burdens imposed by each collection of information.

B. Summary of the Amendment

As described in more detail above, we are adopting an interim final amendment to Form 10-K to implement Section 72001 of the FAST Act. We are amending Form 10-K to add new Item 16. This new item will explicitly allow a registrant, at its option, to include a summary in the Form 10-K. Each disclosure topic included in the summary is required to contain a hyperlink to the related, more detailed disclosure item in the Form 10-K. Under the interim final amendment, a registrant has the flexibility to determine the content and the length of the summary.

C. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to the Amendment

We anticipate that new Item 16 of Form 10-K will increase the burdens and costs for companies that elect to prepare a summary. We derived our burden hour and cost estimates by estimating the average amount of time it would take a registrant to prepare and review the summary, as well as the average hourly rate for outside professionals who assist with such preparation. In addition, our burden estimates are based on several assumptions.

First, we assumed that registrants that elect to prepare a summary will not summarize every item in the Form 10-K. Therefore, to estimate the average burden hours of the interim final amendment, we have looked to the burden estimates carried internally by registrants for Form 10,34 an Exchange Act registration form that requires many of same item disclosures as does Form 10-K. For purposes of the PRA, we have estimated the total burden per response for preparing and filing Form 10 to be 215 hours and that 25% of that burden (53.75 hours) is carried internally by the registrant. We estimate that the burden to prepare the Form 10-K summary would be less than that required to prepare the Form 10 because the summary would call for less information than required by Form 10. We estimate that the average incremental burden for a registrant to prepare the summary would be 50 hours. This estimate represents the average burden for all registrants, both large and small. In deriving our estimates, we recognize that the burdens will likely vary among individual registrants based on a number of factors, including the size and complexity of their operations. We believe that some registrants will experience costs in excess of this average in the first year of compliance with the amendments and some registrants may experience less than the average costs.

34 17 CFR 249.210.

Second, we assumed that 10% of Form 10-K filers would elect to prepare a summary. The number of registrants that would choose to do a summary, however, is uncertain. We request comment and supporting empirical data, for purposes of the PRA, on the number of registrants that are expected to prepare a summary as a result of the interim final amendment.

The table below shows the total annual compliance burden, in hours and in costs, of the collection of information resulting from the interim final amendment.35 The burden estimates were calculated by multiplying the estimated number of responses by the estimated average amount of time it would take an issuer to prepare and review a Form 10-K summary. The portion of the burden carried by outside professionals is reflected as a cost, while the portion of the burden carried by the issuer internally is reflected in hours. For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that 75% of the burden of preparation of Form 10-K is carried by the registrant internally and that 25% of the burden of preparation is carried by outside professionals retained by the registrant at an average cost of $400 per hour.36

35 For convenience, the estimated hour and cost burdens in the table have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

36 We recognize that the costs of retaining outside professionals may vary depending on the nature of the professional services, but for purposes of this PRA analysis we estimate that such costs will be an average of $400 per hour. This estimate is based on consultations with several registrants, law firms and other persons who regularly assist registrants in preparing and filing periodic reports with the Commission.

Table 1—Incremental Paperwork Burden Under the Interim Final Amendment Estimated
  • number of
  • affected
  • responses
  • Incremental
  • burden
  • hours/form
  • Total
  • incremental
  • burden hours
  • 75%
  • company
  • 25%
  • professional
  • Professional
  • costs
  • (A) (B) (C) = (A) * (B) (D) = (C) * 0.75 (E) = (C) * 0.25 (F) = (E) * $400 Form 10-K Summary 37 814 50 40,700 30,525 10,175 $4,070,000
    D. Request for Comment

    37 This number is our estimate of the number of registrants that will choose to include a summary in their Form 10-K.

    We request comments in order to evaluate: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.38 Specifically, we request comment on the estimated number or percentage of registrants that are likely to include a summary in their Form 10-K.

    38 We request comment pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B).

    Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burdens. Persons who desire to submit comments on the collection of information requirements should direct their comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and send a copy of the comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-09-16. Requests for materials submitted to the OMB by us with regard to these collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-09-16 and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington DC 20549-0213. Interested persons are encouraged to send comments to the OMB by July 11, 2016.

    VI. Statutory Authority

    The amendment contained in this release is being adopted under the authority set forth in Sections 3, 12, 13, 15(d), and 23(a) of the Exchange Act, and Section 72001 of the FAST Act.

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 249

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    Text of the Interim Final Amendment

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission is amending Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 249—FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 1. The authority citation for part 249 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; 12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1350; Sec. 953(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1904; Sec. 102(a)(3), Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 309 (2012); Sec. 107, Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 313 (2012), and Sec. 72001, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015), unless otherwise noted.

    Section 249.220f is also issued under secs. 3(a), 202, 208, 302, 306(a), 401(a), 401(b), 406 and 407, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745.

    Section 249.240f is also issued under secs. 3(a), 202, 208, 302, 306(a), 401(a), 406 and 407, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745.

    Section 249.308 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 80a-29 and 80a-37.

    Section 249.308a is also issued under secs. 3(a) and 302, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745.

    Section 249.308b is also issued under secs. 3(a) and 302, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745.

    Section 249.310 is also issued under secs. 3(a), 202, 208, 302, 406 and 407, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745.

    Section 249.326(T) also issued under section 13(f)(1) (15 U.S.C. 78m(f)(1)).

    Section 249.330 is also issued under secs. 3(a), 406, and 407, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745.

    Section 249.331 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78j-1, 7202, 7233, 7241, 7264, 7265; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.

    Section 249.617 is also issued under Pub. L. 111-203, § 939, 939A, 124. Stat. 1376 (2010) (15 U.S.C. 78c, 15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).

    Section 249.819 is also issued under 12 U.S.C. 5465(e).

    Section 249.1400 is also issued under sec. 943, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.

    Section 249.1800 is also issued under Pub. L. 111.203, § 922(a), 124 Stat 1841 (2010).

    Section 249.1801 is also issued under Pub. L. 111.203, § 922(a), 124 Stat 1841 (2010).

    2. Amend Form 10-K (referenced in § 249.310) by adding new Item 16 to Part IV to read as follows: Note:

    The text of Form 10-K does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20549 FORM 10-K Part IV Item 16. Form 10-K Summary.

    Registrants may, at their option, include a summary of information required by this form, but only if each item in the summary is presented fairly and accurately and includes a hyperlink to the material contained in this form to which such item relates, including to materials contained in any exhibits filed with the form.

    Instruction: The summary shall refer only to Form 10-K disclosure that is included in the form at the time it is filed. A registrant need not update the summary to reflect information required by Part III of Form 10-K that the registrant incorporates by reference from a proxy or information statement filed after the Form 10-K, but must state in the summary that the summary does not include Part III information because that information will be incorporated by reference from a later filed proxy or information statement involving the election of directors.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13328 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2006-0149] RIN 0960-AF58 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System Disorders AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate claims involving respiratory disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). The revisions reflect our program experience and advances in medical knowledge since we last comprehensively revised this body system in 1993, as well as comments we received from medical experts and the public.

    DATES:

    These final rules are effective October 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    We are revising and making final the rules for evaluating respiratory disorders we proposed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2013 (78 FR 7968). The preamble to the NPRM provided an explanation of the changes from the current rules and our reasons for proposing those changes. To the extent that we are adopting the proposed rules as published, we are not repeating that information here. You can view the NPRM by visiting www.regulations.gov and searching for document “SSA-2006-0149-0024.” We are making a number of changes because of public comments we received in response to the NPRM. We explain those changes in our summary of public comments and our responses later in this preamble. We are also making minor editorial changes for clarity throughout these final rules.

    Why are we revising the listings for evaluating respiratory disorders?

    We are revising the listings for evaluating respiratory disorders to reflect our program experience and advances in medical knowledge since we last comprehensively revised the listings for this body system, and comments we received from medical experts and the public at an outreach policy conference, in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), and in response to an NPRM. We last published final rules making comprehensive revisions to section 3.00—the respiratory system listings for adults (people who are at least 18 years old)—and section 103.00—the respiratory system listings for children (people under age 18)—on October 7, 1993.1 Since that time, we have revised the introductory text for children, revised some testing requirements, added adult and child listings for lung transplants, removed criterion C from listing 3.09, added listing 103.06 and corresponding introductory text, and extended the effective date of the rules.2

    1 58 FR 52346; corrected at 59 FR 1274 (January 10, 1994). These listings appear in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404.

    2 See 65 FR 54747 (2000), 65 FR 57946 (2000), 67 FR 20018 (2002), 67 FR 43537 (2002), 68 FR 36911 (2003), 70 FR 35028 (2005), 71 FR 2312 (2006), 72 FR 33662 (2007), 73 FR 31025 (2008), 75 FR 33166 (2010), 77 FR 35264 (2012), 79 FR 10661 (2014), 80 FR 1 (2015), and 80 FR 19522 (2015).

    When will we begin to use these final rules?

    We will begin to use these final rules on their effective date. We will continue to use the current listings until the date these final rules become effective. We will apply the final rules to new applications filed on or after the effective date of these final rules and to claims that are pending on or after the effective date.3 These final rules will remain in effect for 3 years after the date they become effective, unless we extend them, or revise and issue them again.

    3 This means that we will use these final rules on and after their effective date, in any case in which we make a determination or decision. We expect that Federal courts will review our final decisions using the rules that were in effect at the time we issued the decisions. If a court reverses our final decision and remands a case for further administrative proceedings after the effective date of these final rules, we will apply these final rules to the entire period at issue in the decision we make after the court's remand.

    Public Comments on the NPRM

    In the NPRM, we provided the public with a 60-day comment period that ended on April 5, 2013. We received 212 comments. The commenters included advocacy groups, legal services organizations, State agencies that make disability determinations for us, medical organizations, and people who have respiratory disorders or have relatives with respiratory disorders.

    We carefully considered all of the comments that were relevant to this rulemaking. We have tried to present the commenters' concerns and suggestions accurately and completely, and we have responded to all significant issues that were within the scope of these rules. We provide our reasons for adopting or not adopting the recommendations in the summaries of the comments and our responses. We also received several comments supporting our proposed changes. We appreciate those comments; however, we did not include them in our discussion of the rules below.

    As part of the rulemaking process, we held an informational teleconference with the public on May 10, 2013, during which we discussed general background information on the disability program, information for people with cystic fibrosis who either apply for Social Security disability benefits or are currently receiving disability benefits, information we received from medical experts and members of the public, and proposed criteria in listings 3.04 and 103.04.4 We did not accept public comments during the teleconference. We have included information related to the teleconference in the rulemaking docket for these rules under Docket ID number SSA-2006-0149-0237.5

    4 See 78 FR 26681 (2013).

    5See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=SSA-2006-0149-0237.

    Pulmonary Function Testing

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we not refer to arterial blood gas (ABG) tests and pulse oximetry as pulmonary function tests (PFTs) because they are monitoring devices.

    Response: We are not adopting this recommendation because we use the results of these tests to document the severity of respiratory disorders and we believe it is appropriate, for this purpose, to refer to ABG tests and pulse oximetry as PFTs.

    Comment: Many commenters did not support removing the requirement for spirometry tracings of the forced expiratory maneuvers used to determine a person's highest forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC). Some commenters explained that the tracings allow us to confirm that the American Thoracic Society (ATS) testing standards were met. One commenter stated that requiring tracings will enhance the quality of the test and ensure confidence in the disability decision-making process for respiratory disorders. Another commenter agreed with us that accepting providers' interpretations of spirometry results without requiring tracings might reduce the number of tests that we purchase, but stated that not also requiring tracings might result in inappropriate allowances. One commenter suggested that, if we do not require tracings, we should require flow-volume loops to ensure the integrity of the test.

    Response: We are adopting the recommendation that we continue to require spirometry tracings. In the proposed rule, we indicated that we believed it would be appropriate to trust the professional who supervises the test and for us to use the resulting spirometry values without corresponding tracings to assess the severity of a person's respiratory disorder. The public commenters (including medical experts who use the results of spirometry in their treatment of people with respiratory disorders, and disability examiners), however, disagreed with us.

    In its public comment, the ATS recommended that we continue to require documentation of three acceptable tracings. We agree with that comment.

    For most claims involving respiratory disorders and in which spirometry results are available, the evidence we receive usually does not include the spirometry tracings. By requiring tracings, we may need to recontact the medical source to seek the tracings or, if we know from experience that the source either cannot or will not provide the tracings, we may need to purchase consultative examinations to obtain spirometry results with tracings, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis. We will provide guidance to our adjudicators on when it is appropriate to purchase a PFT when we conduct training on the final rules.

    Comment: Some commenters recommended that we continue to require documentation of equipment calibration for spirometry.

    Response: We are not adopting these recommendations because, in our program experience, recorded calibrations that we receive almost invariably establish spirometer accuracy. We do not believe it is necessary to continue to require proof of equipment calibration. We expect the professional who supervises the test to comply with the professional standards for equipment calibrations. If, however, we have reason to believe that the equipment was not calibrated, we may then request calibration logs from the medical source.

    Comment: Several commenters explained that the spirometry values (FEV1 and FVC) for several listings (proposed 3.02A, 3.02B, 3.02C4, 3.03A, 3.04A, 3.04B, 103.02A, 103.02B, 103.04A, and 103.04B) include too much variability in percent predicted between females and males, as well as between different height and age categories.

    Response: We agree with these commenters. While we based the values in the spirometry tables on reference values from Hankinson, et al., 6 as noted in the NPRM, we agree that there was too much variability between categories (age, gender, and height). In these final rules, the percent predicted values (from which we derive the spirometry values that we use in final 3.02A, 3.02B, 3.03A, 3.04A, 103.02A, 103.02B, and 103.04A) by height are all within three percentage points of one another for a given age and gender cohort.

    6 Hankinson, J. L., Odencrantz, J. R., & Fedan, K. B. (1999). Spirometric reference values from a sample of the general U.S. population. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 159(1), 179-187.

    Comment: Some commenters recommended that we include percent predicted values in our rules rather than tables of absolute values for measurement of lung function.

    Response: We did not adopt these recommendations. We believe that both percent predicted values and absolute values accurately represent the severity of a person's respiratory disorder. While the percent predicted values represent the percentage of lung function remaining, the absolute values of FEV1 and FVC represent the actual volumes of air that a person exhales during a forced expiratory maneuver.

    Comment: Two commenters suggested that we use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) calculator, which calculates percent predicted values, to determine the severity of a person's respiratory disorder.7

    7 The CDC/NIOSH calculator is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/spirometry/refcalculator.html.

    Response: We did not adopt these recommendations because the calculator is intended for use with a NIOSH spirometry training course and the Food and Drug Administration has not approved the calculator for clinical use.

    Comment: One commenter agreed with using diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) to measure respiratory function but recommended that we use percent predicted values rather than absolute values to more accurately capture condition severity.

    Response: We did not adopt this recommendation. DLCO test results include both the actual (absolute) and percent predicted values for the measurement. Both values represent the ability of the lungs to transfer gases across the alveolar-capillary membrane. Neither value is more accurate than the other value because they both represent the same DLCO measurement.

    Comment: One commenter had three concerns with the use of pulse oximetry in proposed 3.02C4a. First, requiring pulse oximetry and spirometry decreases the utility of the listing. Second, the key finding on a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is whether desaturation occurs with exertion and not the baseline or post-6MWT results. Lastly, requiring printouts of pulse oximetry will dramatically reduce the availability of pulse oximetry evidence that we can use. This commenter suggested that the listing require desaturation with exercise independent of spirometry.

    Response: We partially adopted these recommendations. We revised proposed 3.02C4, final 3.02C3, to require only pulse oximetry. We believe that the percent of oxygen saturation of blood hemoglobin measured by pulse oximetry required in 3.02C3 demonstrates a chronic gas exchange defect of listing-level severity. If resting pulse oximetry does not establish listing-level severity, we may use pulse oximetry during or after a 6MWT. We require a printout of the pulse wave during measurement because we use it to verify that perfusion to the area covered by the probe is adequate and that the probe is positioned properly, and because motion artifact may limit the accuracy of pulse oximetry during the 6MWT. Furthermore, to be consistent with this revision to final 3.02C3, we combined proposed 3.02C2, which required two resting ABG tests to document a chronic gas exchange defect of listing-level severity, and proposed 3.02C3, which required one exercise ABG test, into final 3.02C2 requiring one ABG test, either resting or during steady state exercise.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that a clinical evaluation accompany the pulse oximetry measurement in proposed 3.02C4 because a pulse oximetry measurement should not be considered a primary diagnostic tool.

    Response: We agree with the commenter, but did not make any changes as a result. Proposed and final 3.00D1 explain that we need a person's medical history, physical examination findings, the results of imaging, and pulmonary function tests to document and assess the severity of a person's respiratory disorder. Consequently, the rules already require the type of clinical evaluation of a person's respiratory disorder that the commenter suggested.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we require pulse oximetry be performed while the person is breathing room air or on oxygen supplementation. This commenter also suggested that we include a requirement that nail polish is removed prior to testing and that, if finger circulation is not good, we accept ear lobe pulse oximetry.

    Response: We did not adopt these recommendations because the purpose of the pulse oximetry measurement is to determine oxygen (O2) saturation on room air and not with oxygen supplementation. We do not require that a finger probe be used. It is the responsibility of the professional supervising the test to choose the most appropriate probe (for example, finger or ear) and to also ensure that proper testing protocol (including removal of nail polish) is followed.

    Asthma

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we remove the requirement for reduced lung function between asthma exacerbations (that is, baseline obstruction).

    Response: We did not propose to change this requirement and, therefore, are not adopting this recommendation. We currently require baseline obstruction (current 3.00C) established by spirometry while the person is medically stable to document listing-level asthma. We continued to include this requirement in final 3.00I2a and 3.03A.

    Comment: One commenter asked us to continue to consider adherence to therapy for asthma.

    Response: We agree with the commenter, but did not make any changes as a result. We consider any hospitalization for an exacerbation of asthma lasting at least 48 hours to be despite prescribed therapy, unless we have evidence to the contrary.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we add a criterion to proposed 103.03 for the need for endotracheal intubation, which is a type of treatment for respiratory failure.

    Response: We did not adopt this recommendation because we do not believe we need to specify the types of treatments we consider under 103.03 when a child is hospitalized for asthma. We did, however, add guidance in final 3.00I1 and 103.00G1 to explain that we evaluate respiratory failure resulting from chronic asthma under final 3.14 or 103.14.

    Cystic Fibrosis

    Comment: Many commenters recommended that we continue to consider treatment for cystic fibrosis (CF) outside of the hospital. The commenters stated that physicians treat CF pulmonary exacerbations in a variety of ways including hospitalization and through use of intravenous antibiotics and inhaled nebulized therapies outside of the hospital setting. Some commenters explained that treatment at home for CF pulmonary exacerbations indicates the same severity of illness as a hospitalization for CF and is increasingly the method preferred by treating physicians.

    Response: We adopted these recommendations. We included a criterion in final 3.04G and 103.04G that requires 10 consecutive days of intravenous antibiotic treatment, without specifying where (for example, in a hospital) the treatment occurs, for CF pulmonary exacerbations. We also added guidance in final 3.00J3 and 103.00H3 to explain that treatment for CF exacerbations usually includes intravenous antibiotics and intensified airway clearance therapy (for example, increased frequencies of chest percussion or increased use of inhaled nebulized therapies, such as bronchodilators or mucolytics). We want to assure the commenters that we are able to evaluate CF under the criteria in final listings 3.04 and 103.04, using medical equivalence, the functional equivalence rules for children, or at other steps in our sequential evaluation process.

    Comment: Multiple commenters suggested that we revise proposed 3.04D and 103.04E, which required any two of six listed CF exacerbations and complications. Some commenters explained that four of the listed exacerbations and complications (spontaneous pneumothorax, respiratory failure, pulmonary hemorrhage, and hypoxemia) are serious health issues for people with CF. The commenters recommended that we revise the list to more accurately reflect the progression of CF and that we require only one of these four exacerbations or complications to establish that a person is disabled.

    Response: We adopted these recommendations by adding standalone listing criteria for spontaneous pneumothorax in final 3.04C and 103.04D, respiratory failure in final 3.04D and 103.04E, pulmonary hemorrhage requiring vascular embolization in final 3.04E and 103.04F, and hypoxemia measured by pulse oximetry in final 3.04F.

    Comment: One commenter stated that ABG tests in proposed 3.04B do not correlate well to disability for people with CF, and that ABG tests are not generally used in most specialized CF care centers.

    Response: We adopted this recommendation and removed proposed 3.04B that required ABG test results to evaluate the severity of CF in the final rule.

    Comment: One commenter said that proposed 103.04C for hypoxemia with the need for at least 1.0 liter per minute of oxygen supplementation for at least 4 hours per day for at least 90 consecutive days is “significantly too strict” for children with CF. The commenter stated that any child whose CF meets the proposed listing would already be on a lung transplant list.

    Response: We adopted this recommendation and have not included proposed 103.04C in the final rule. While being on a lung transplant list is not a listing criterion, we believe children with CF whose impairment would have met proposed 103.04C will have an impairment that meets the requirements in one of the listings for CF included in the final rule.

    Comment: Multiple commenters objected to the proposed lower spirometry values for evaluating CF in proposed 3.04A and 103.04A.

    Response: We adopted these comments and modified the spirometry values in proposed 3.04A and 103.04A. Our revisions to all spirometry values to minimize variability, as we described above, in addition to the fact that people with CF are disabled at a comparatively higher level of lung function than people who do not have CF, resulted in none of the values in final 3.04A and 103.04A being lower than the corresponding values in current 3.04A and 103.04A.

    Pulmonary Hypertension

    Comment: Multiple commenters recommended that we not use echocardiograms to evaluate the severity of chronic pulmonary hypertension in proposed 3.09B. One commenter stated that results from echocardiograms do not accurately reflect the presence of moderate pulmonary hypertension that causes marked functional limitations. Another commenter stated that only cardiac catheterization should be used to evaluate disability for pulmonary hypertension in proposed 3.09A.

    Response: We adopted these recommendations and removed the echocardiography requirement from final 3.09. We also removed echocardiography from the list of examples of medical imaging techniques in proposed 3.00D2 (final 3.00D3).

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we add listing criteria to proposed 3.09A, which requires only cardiac catheterization for chronic pulmonary hypertension.

    Response: We did not adopt this recommendation because adding the suggested listing criteria to 3.09 increases the severity level of the listing. We believe final 3.09 is medically appropriate and represents an inability to perform any gainful activity. When we have the results of cardiac catheterization and those results meet the requirements of the listing, we do not need additional criteria to support listing-level severity. Adding listing criteria creates an unnecessary evidence burden on claimants.

    Respiratory Failure

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we exclude asthma and obesity as underlying conditions for respiratory failure in proposed 3.14 and 103.14.

    Response: We did not adopt this recommendation. Final 3.14 and 103.14 require that we evaluate respiratory failure resulting from any chronic respiratory disorder except CF. Obesity is not a “chronic respiratory disorder” and, therefore, respiratory failure cannot be evaluated under these listings if obesity is the person's only impairment. (We address how to consider the effects of obesity combined with a respiratory disorder in final 3.00O.) We believe it is appropriate to evaluate respiratory failure resulting from chronic asthma under these listings.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we consider noninvasive ventilation as an alternative to invasive ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure resulting from CF.

    Response: We adopted this recommendation because ventilatory support in respiratory failure associated with any underlying chronic respiratory disorder, including CF, while traditionally provided by invasive ventilation, is now often provided by noninvasive ventilation. In either case, cyclical positive pressure is applied to the airway to assist ventilation and reduce the work of breathing. We believe it is reasonable to count the total ventilatory support time, whether it be invasive or noninvasive ventilation, for our purposes, so we added this alternative to final 3.04D, 3.14, 103.04E, and 103.14.

    Other Comments

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we include a listing for people with respiratory disorders who are dependent on oxygen supplementation.

    Response: We are not adopting this recommendation because the use of supplemental oxygen does not, by itself, indicate an impairment of listing-level severity. In proposed 3.00D1 and final 3.00D2 and 103.00D2, we explain that if a person uses supplementation oxygen, we still need medical evidence to establish the severity of his or her respiratory disorder.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we include a criterion in 3.02 that requires three hospitalizations within a 12-month period for any chronic respiratory disorder except CF.

    Response: We adopted this recommendation in final 3.02D because we agree that three hospitalizations of 48 hours or longer, 30 days or more apart, within a 12-month period that we are considering in connection with an application or continuing disability review for exacerbations or complications of a chronic respiratory disorder will prevent a person from engaging in any gainful activity and, therefore, represents listing-level severity.

    Additionally, we are able to evaluate chronic respiratory disorders resulting in fewer than three hospitalizations in a consecutive 12-month period using medical equivalence, under other listing criteria, or at other steps in our sequential evaluation process. For example, if a claimant's chronic respiratory disorder does not precisely meet the hospitalization requirements in final 3.02D, we may find that the disorder is medically equivalent to that listing, if the disorder is at least medically equal in severity and duration to the listing criteria. Our medical equivalence rules permit us to find that a disorder is medically equivalent to a listing at step 3 if there are other findings related to the disorder that are at least of equal medical significance to the listing criteria (see §§ 404.1526 and 416.926).

    Although some of our listings include criteria for repeated hospitalizations (3.02D, 3.03B, 3.04B, 3.07, 103.02E, 103.03, and 103.04C), our medical equivalence policy accommodates recent trends in clinical care that emphasize quality of, rather than quantity of, medical treatment. The medical equivalence policy also accommodates claimants' varying level of access to medical care (as well as the preference of some medical providers to reduce the use of emergency department and hospital-level medical interventions). This accommodation accounts for differences in medical care people with similar disorders receive depending on the medical resources available to them. The medical equivalence policy provides some flexibility in determining whether a claimant is disabled at step 3 of the sequential evaluation process by allowing us to consider whether the claimant's impairment meets the listed criteria or is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment. The final listings do not provide substantive instructions to our adjudicators for determining such equivalence because we can better provide this information through operating instructions and training

    If we are not able to find that a person's impairment due to a chronic respiratory disorder is disabling using our listings, we may still find the person disabled at the final steps of the sequential evaluation process.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we include a criterion in 3.02 for persistent chronic lung infections that are refractory to treatment or provide guidance in our internal operating instructions for how to evaluate these cases.

    Response: We did not adopt this recommendation because we explain in final 3.00Q that we evaluate limitations in respiratory function resulting from chronic lung infections under 3.02. We will, however, provide guidance to our adjudicators on how to evaluate chronic lung infections that are resistant to treatment when we conduct training on these final rules.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we include a listing for prolonged, active infectious periods of mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) lasting longer than 12 months.

    Response: We did not adopt this recommendation because prolonged, active infectious periods of MTB lasting longer than 12 months are extremely rare. MTB is generally treatable with a 6-month course of antibiotics. If, however, active infectious periods associated with resistance to, or intolerance of, multiple antibiotics last longer than 12 months, we will evaluate the impairment under an appropriate listing.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we place the tables in Part A directly following the listings for which they are used, similar to how the tables appear in Part B.

    Response: We adopted this recommendation because we agree that it is easier for an adjudicator to use a table when it is located directly following its listing.

    Other Changes

    In proposed 3.00O and 103.00L, we included guidance explaining that, for listings that require a specific number of events within a 12-month period, the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with the application or continuing disability review. We did not, however, provide a reference to proposed 3.00O and 103.00L in each proposed listing. In these final rules, we include this guidance in each listing (final 3.02D, 3.03B, 3.04B, 3.04F, 3.04G, 3.07, 3.14, 103.02E, 103.03, 103.04C, 103.04G, and 103.14) and, as a result, it is unnecessary to also include the same guidance in the introductory text.

    In proposed 3.00D3 and 103.00D3, we included a requirement that pulmonary function testing be conducted in accordance with the most recently published standards of the ATS. We do not include this statement in these final rules because we now include in final 3.00E and 103.00E (for spirometry) and in final 3.00F (for DLCO) the specific ATS testing standards that we require to evaluate respiratory disorders. The ATS may revise its testing standards at any time, in which case we would review any new standards and, if appropriate, publish proposed changes to our requirements for public comment before revising the rules.

    In these final rules, we are redesignating current 103.00F as 103.00K and revising the reference to 103.00F in listing 103.06 to 103.00K. We are not revising the introductory text or the listing requirements, both of which we added to the respiratory body system in 2015.8

    8 See 80 FR 19522.

    What is our authority to make rules and set procedures for determining whether a person is disabled under the statutory definition?

    The Act authorizes us to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to implement them. Sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1) of the Act.

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these final rules meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed them.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, does not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income). List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404

    Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.

    20 CFR Part 416

    Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability benefits; Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending 20 CFR part 404 subpart P and part 416 subpart I as set forth below:

    PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950-) Subpart P—Determining Disability and Blindness 1. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    2. Amend appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 by: a. Revising item 4 of the introductory text before part A; b. Revising the body system name for section 3.00 in the table of contents; c. Revising section 3.00 in part A; d. Revising in part B the body system name for section 103.00 in the table of contents; and e. Revising section 103.00 in part B.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404—Listing of Impairments

    4. Respiratory Disorders (3.00 and 103.00): October 7, 2019.

    Part A

    3.00 Respiratory Disorders.

    3.00 RESPIRATORY DISORDERS

    A. Which disorders do we evaluate in this body system?

    1. We evaluate respiratory disorders that result in obstruction (difficulty moving air out of the lungs) or restriction (difficulty moving air into the lungs), or that interfere with diffusion (gas exchange) across cell membranes in the lungs. Examples of such disorders and the listings we use to evaluate them include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema, 3.02), pulmonary fibrosis and pneumoconiosis (3.02), asthma (3.02 or 3.03), cystic fibrosis (3.04), and bronchiectasis (3.02 or 3.07). We also use listings in this body system to evaluate respiratory failure (3.04D or 3.14), chronic pulmonary hypertension (3.09), and lung transplantation (3.11).

    2. We evaluate cancers affecting the respiratory system under the listings in 13.00. We evaluate the pulmonary effects of neuromuscular and autoimmune disorders under these listings or under the listings in 11.00 or 14.00, respectively.

    B. What are the symptoms and signs of respiratory disorders? Symptoms and signs of respiratory disorders include dyspnea (shortness of breath), chest pain, coughing, wheezing, sputum production, hemoptysis (coughing up blood from the respiratory tract), use of accessory muscles of respiration, and tachypnea (rapid rate of breathing).

    C. What abbreviations do we use in this body system?

    1. ABG means arterial blood gas.

    2. BiPAP means bi-level positive airway pressure ventilation.

    3. BTPS means body temperature and ambient pressure, saturated with water vapor.

    4. CF means cystic fibrosis.

    5. CFRD means CF-related diabetes.

    6. CFTR means CF transmembrane conductance regulator.

    7. CO means carbon monoxide.

    8. COPD means chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    9. DLCO means diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

    10. FEV 1 means forced expiratory volume in the first second of a forced expiratory maneuver.

    11. FVC means forced vital capacity.

    12. L means liter.

    13. mL CO (STPD)/min/mmHg means milliliters of carbon monoxide at standard temperature and pressure, dry, per minute, per millimeter of mercury.

    14. P a O 2 means arterial blood partial pressure of oxygen.

    15. P a CO 2 means arterial blood partial pressure of carbon dioxide.

    16. S p O 2 means percentage of oxygen saturation of blood hemoglobin measured by pulse oximetry.

    17. 6MWT means 6-minute walk test.

    18. VI means volume of inhaled gas during a DLCO test.

    D. What documentation do we need to evaluate your respiratory disorder?

    1. We need medical evidence to document and assess the severity of your respiratory disorder. Medical evidence should include your medical history, physical examination findings, the results of imaging (see 3.00D3), pulmonary function tests (see 3.00D4), other relevant laboratory tests, and descriptions of any prescribed treatment and your response to it. We may not need all of this evidence depending on your particular respiratory disorder and its effects on you.

    2. If you use supplemental oxygen, we still need medical evidence to establish the severity of your respiratory disorder.

    3. Imaging refers to medical imaging techniques, such as x-ray and computerized tomography. The imaging must be consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice as the proper technique to support the evaluation of the disorder.

    4. Pulmonary function tests include spirometry (which measures ventilation of the lungs), DLCO tests (which measure gas diffusion in the lungs), ABG tests (which measure the partial pressure of oxygen, P a O 2, and carbon dioxide, P a CO 2, in the arterial blood), and pulse oximetry (which measures oxygen saturation, S p O 2, of peripheral blood hemoglobin).

    E. What is spirometry and what are our requirements for an acceptable test and report?

    1. Spirometry, which measures how well you move air into and out of your lungs, involves at least three forced expiratory maneuvers during the same test session. A forced expiratory maneuver is a maximum inhalation followed by a forced maximum exhalation, and measures exhaled volumes of air over time. The volume of air you exhale in the first second of the forced expiratory maneuver is the FEV1. The total volume of air that you exhale during the entire forced expiratory maneuver is the FVC. We use your highest FEV1 value to evaluate your respiratory disorder under 3.02A, 3.03A, and 3.04A, and your highest FVC value to evaluate your respiratory disorder under 3.02B, regardless of whether the values are from the same forced expiratory maneuver or different forced expiratory maneuvers.

    2. We have the following requirements for spirometry under these listings:

    a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. Examples of when we would not consider you to be medically stable include when you are:

    (i) Within 2 weeks of a change in your prescribed respiratory medication.

    (ii) Experiencing, or within 30 days of completion of treatment for, a lower respiratory tract infection.

    (iii) Experiencing, or within 30 days of completion of treatment for, an acute exacerbation (temporary worsening) of a chronic respiratory disorder. Wheezing by itself does not indicate that you are not medically stable.

    (iv) Hospitalized, or within 30 days of a hospital discharge, for an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack).

    b. During testing, if your FEV1 is less than 70 percent of your predicted normal value, we require repeat spirometry after inhalation of a bronchodilator to evaluate your respiratory disorder under these listings, unless it is medically contraindicated. If you used a bronchodilator before the test and your FEV1 is less than 70 percent of your predicted normal value, we still require repeat spirometry after inhalation of a bronchodilator unless the supervising physician determines that it is not safe for you to take a bronchodilator again (in which case we may need to reschedule the test). If you do not have post-bronchodilator spirometry, the test report must explain why. We can use the results of spirometry administered without bronchodilators when the use of bronchodilators is medically contraindicated.

    c. Your forced expiratory maneuvers must be satisfactory. We consider a forced expiratory maneuver to be satisfactory when you exhale with maximum effort following a full inspiration, and when the test tracing has a sharp takeoff and rapid rise to peak flow, has a smooth contour, and either lasts for at least 6 seconds or maintains a plateau for at least 1 second.

    3. The spirometry report must include the following information:

    a. The date of the test and your name, age or date of birth, gender, and height without shoes. (We will assume that your recorded height on the date of the test is without shoes, unless we have evidence to the contrary.) If your spine is abnormally curved (for example, you have kyphoscoliosis), we will substitute the longest distance between your outstretched fingertips with your arms abducted 90 degrees in place of your height when this measurement is greater than your standing height without shoes.

    b. Any factors, if applicable, that can affect the interpretation of the test results (for example, your cooperation or effort in doing the test).

    c. Legible tracings of your forced expiratory maneuvers in a volume-time format showing your name and the date of the test for each maneuver.

    4. If we purchase spirometry, the medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.

    F. What is a DLCO test, and what are our requirements for an acceptable test and report?

    1. A DLCO test measures the gas exchange across cell membranes in your lungs. It measures how well CO diffuses from the alveoli (air sacs) of your lungs into your blood. DLCO may be severely reduced in some disorders, such as interstitial lung disease (for example, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, asbestosis, and sarcoidosis) and COPD (particularly emphysema), even when the results of spirometry are not significantly reduced. We use the average of two of your unadjusted (that is, uncorrected for hemoglobin concentration) DLCO measurements reported in mL CO (STPD)/min/mmHg to evaluate your respiratory disorder under 3.02C1.

    2. We have the following requirements for DLCO tests under these listings:

    a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. See 3.00E2a.

    b. The test must use the single-breath technique.

    (i) The VI during the DLCO maneuver must be at least 85 percent of your current FVC, and your time of inhalation must be less than 4 seconds. (See 3.00E for our rules for programmatically acceptable spirometry.) If you do not have an FVC measurement on the same day as the DLCO test, we may use your FVC from programmatically acceptable spirometry administered within 90 days of the DLCO test.

    (ii) Your breath-hold time must be between 8 and 12 seconds.

    (iii) Your total exhalation time must be less than or equal to 4 seconds, with a sample collection time of less than 3 seconds. If your FVC is at least 2.0 L, the washout volume must be between 0.75 L and 1.0 L. If your FVC is less than 2.0 L, the washout volume must be at least 0.5 L.

    3. The DLCO test report must include the following information:

    a. The date of the test and your name, age or date of birth, gender, and height without shoes. (We will assume that your recorded height on the date of the test is without shoes, unless we have evidence to the contrary.) If your spine is abnormally curved (for example, you have kyphoscoliosis), we will substitute the longest distance between your outstretched fingertips with your arms abducted 90 degrees in place of your height when this measurement is greater than your standing height without shoes.

    b. Any factors, if applicable, that can affect the interpretation of the test results (for example, your cooperation or effort in doing the test).

    c. Legible tracings of your VI, breath-hold maneuver, and volume of exhaled gas showing your name and the date of the test for each DLCO maneuver.

    d. At least two acceptable (see 3.00F2) DLCO measurements within 3 mL CO (STPD)/min/mmHg of each other or within 10 percent of the highest value.

    4. We may need to purchase a DLCO test to determine whether your disorder meets 3.02C1 when we have evidence showing that you have a chronic respiratory disorder that could result in impaired gas exchange, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis. Since the DLCO calculation requires a current FVC measurement, we may also purchase spirometry at the same time as the DLCO test, even if we already have programmatically acceptable spirometry.

    5. Before we purchase a DLCO test, a medical consultant (see §§ 404.1616 and 416.1016 of this chapter), preferably one with experience in the care of people with respiratory disorders, must review your case record to determine if we need the test. The medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.

    G. What is an ABG test, and what are our requirements for an acceptable test and report?

    1. General. An ABG test measures PaO2, PaCO2, and the concentration of hydrogen ions in your arterial blood. We use a resting or an exercise ABG measurement to evaluate your respiratory disorder under 3.02C2.

    2. Resting ABG tests.

    a. We have the following requirements for resting ABG tests under these listings:

    (i) You must be medically stable at the time of the test. See 3.00E2a.

    (ii) The test must be administered while you are breathing room air; that is, without oxygen supplementation.

    b. The resting ABG test report must include the following information:

    (i) Your name, the date of the test, and either the altitude or both the city and State of the test site.

    (ii) The PaO2 and PaCO2 values.

    c. We may need to purchase a resting ABG test to determine whether your disorder meets 3.02C2 when we have evidence showing that you have a chronic respiratory disorder that could result in impaired gas exchange, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis.

    d. Before we purchase a resting ABG test, a medical consultant (see §§ 404.1616 and 416.1016 of this chapter), preferably one with experience in the care of people with respiratory disorders, must review your case record to determine if we need the test. The medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.

    3. Exercise ABG tests.

    a. We will not purchase an exercise ABG test.

    b. We have the following requirements for exercise ABG tests under these listings:

    (i) You must have done the exercise under steady state conditions while breathing room air. If you were tested on a treadmill, you generally must have exercised for at least 4 minutes at a grade and speed providing oxygen (O2) consumption of approximately 17.5 milliliters per kilogram per minute (mL/kg/min) or 5.0 metabolic equivalents (METs). If you were tested on a cycle ergometer, you generally must have exercised for at least 4 minutes at an exercise equivalent of 5.0 METs.

    (ii) We may use a test in which you have not exercised for at least 4 minutes. If you were unable to complete at least 4 minutes of steady state exercise, we need a statement by the person administering the test about whether the results are a valid indication of your respiratory status. For example, this statement may include information about your cooperation or effort in doing the test and whether you were limited in completing the test because of your respiratory disorder or another impairment.

    c. The exercise ABG test report must include the following information:

    (i) Your name, the date of the test, and either the altitude or both the city and state of the test site.

    (ii) The PaO2 and PaCO2 values.

    H. What is pulse oximetry, and what are our requirements for an acceptable test and report?

    1. Pulse oximetry measures SpO2, the percentage of oxygen saturation of blood hemoglobin. We use a pulse oximetry measurement (either at rest, during a 6MWT, or after a 6MWT) to evaluate your respiratory disorder under 3.02C3 or, if you have CF, to evaluate it under 3.04F.

    2. We have the following requirements for pulse oximetry under 3.02C3:

    a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. See 3.00E2a.

    b. Your pulse oximetry measurement must be recorded while you are breathing room air; that is, without oxygen supplementation.

    c. Your pulse oximetry measurement must be stable. By “stable,” we mean that the range of SpO2 values (that is, lowest to highest) during any 15-second interval cannot exceed 2 percentage points. For example: (1) The measurement is stable if the lowest SpO2 value during a 15-second interval is 87 percent and the highest value is 89 percent—a range of 2 percentage points. (2) The measurement is not stable if the lowest value is 86 percent and the highest value is 89 percent—a range of 3 percentage points.

    d. If you have had more than one measurement (for example, at rest and after a 6MWT), we will use the measurement with the lowest SpO2 value.

    e. The pulse oximetry report must include the following information:

    (i) Your name, the date of the test, and either the altitude or both the city and State of the test site.

    (ii) A graphical printout showing your SpO2 value and a concurrent, acceptable pulse wave. An acceptable pulse wave is one that shows the characteristic pulse wave; that is, sawtooth-shaped with a rapid systolic upstroke (nearly vertical) followed by a slower diastolic downstroke (angled downward).

    f. We may need to purchase pulse oximetry at rest to determine whether your disorder meets 3.02C3 when we have evidence showing that you have a chronic respiratory disorder that could result in impaired gas exchange, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis. We may purchase pulse oximetry during and after a 6MWT if your SpO2 value at rest is greater than the value in Table V.

    g. Before we purchase pulse oximetry, a medical consultant (see §§ 404.1616 and 416.1016 of this chapter), preferably one with experience in the care of people with respiratory disorders, must review your case record to determine if we need the test. The medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.

    3. We have the following requirements for pulse oximetry under 3.04F:

    a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. See 3.00E2a.

    b. Your pulse oximetry measurement must be recorded while you are breathing room air; that is, without oxygen supplementation.

    c. If you have had more than one measurement (for example, at rest and after a 6MWT), we will use the measurement with the lowest SpO2 value.

    d. The pulse oximetry report must include your name, the date of the test, and either the altitude or both the city and State of the test site. If you have CF, we do not require a graphical printout showing your SpO2 value and a concurrent, acceptable pulse wave.

    I. What is asthma and how do we evaluate it?

    1. Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the lung airways that we evaluate under 3.02 or 3.03. If you have respiratory failure resulting from chronic asthma (see 3.00N), we will evaluate it under 3.14.

    2. For the purposes of 3.03:

    a. We need evidence showing that you have listing-level (see Table VI in 3.03A) airflow obstruction at baseline while you are medically stable.

    b. The phrase “consider under a disability for 1 year” in 3.03B does not refer to the date on which your disability began, only to the date on which we must reevaluate whether your asthma continues to meet a listing or is otherwise disabling.

    c. We determine the onset of your disability based on the facts of your case, but it will be no later than the admission date of your first of three hospitalizations that satisfy the criteria of 3.03B.

    J. What is CF and how do we evaluate it?

    1. General. We evaluate CF, a genetic disorder that results in abnormal salt and water transport across cell membranes in the lungs, pancreas, and other body organs, under 3.04. We need the evidence described in 3.00J2 to establish that you have CF.

    2. Documentation of CF. We need a report signed by a physician (see §§ 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a) of this chapter) showing both a and b:

    a. One of the following:

    (i) A positive newborn screen for CF; or

    (ii) A history of CF in a sibling; or

    (iii) Documentation of at least one specific CF phenotype or clinical criterion (for example, chronic sino-pulmonary disease with persistent colonization or infections with typical CF pathogens, pancreatic insufficiency, or salt-loss syndromes); and

    b. One of the following definitive laboratory tests:

    (i) An elevated sweat chloride concentration equal to or greater than 60 millimoles per L; or

    (ii) The identification of two CF gene mutations affecting the CFTR; or

    (iii) Characteristic abnormalities in ion transport across the nasal epithelium.

    c. When we have the report showing a and b, but it is not signed by a physician, we also need a report from a physician stating that you have CF.

    d. When we do not have the report showing a and b, we need a report from a physician that is persuasive that a positive diagnosis of CF was confirmed by an appropriate definitive laboratory test. To be persuasive, this report must include a statement by the physician that you had the appropriate definitive laboratory test for diagnosing CF. The report must provide the test results or explain how your diagnosis was established that is consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.

    3. CF pulmonary exacerbations. Examples of CF pulmonary exacerbations include increased cough and sputum production, hemoptysis, increased shortness of breath, increased fatigue, and reduction in pulmonary function. Treatment usually includes intravenous antibiotics and intensified airway clearance therapy (for example, increased frequencies of chest percussion or increased use of inhaled nebulized therapies, such as bronchodilators or mucolytics).

    4. For 3.04G, we require any two exacerbations or complications from the list in 3.04G1 through 3.04G4 within a 12-month period. You may have two of the same exacerbation or complication or two different ones.

    a. If you have two of the acute exacerbations or complications we describe in 3.04G1 and 3.04G2, there must be at least 30 days between the two.

    b. If you have one of the acute exacerbations or complications we describe in 3.04G1 and 3.04G2 and one of the chronic complications we describe in 3.04G3 and 3.04G4, the two can occur during the same time. For example, your CF meets 3.04G if you have the pulmonary hemorrhage we describe in 3.04G2 and the weight loss we describe in 3.04G3 even if the pulmonary hemorrhage occurs during the 90-day period in 3.04G3.

    c. Your CF also meets 3.04G if you have both of the chronic complications in 3.04G3 and 3.04G4.

    5. CF may also affect other body systems such as digestive or endocrine. If your CF, including pulmonary exacerbations and nonpulmonary complications, does not meet or medically equal a respiratory disorders listing, we may evaluate your CF-related impairments under the listings in the affected body system.

    K. What is bronchiectasis and how do we evaluate it? Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disorder that is characterized by abnormal and irreversible dilatation (enlargement) of the airways below the trachea, which may be associated with the accumulation of mucus, bacterial infections, and eventual airway scarring. We require imaging (see 3.00D3) to document this disorder. We evaluate your bronchiectasis under 3.02, or under 3.07 if you are having exacerbations or complications (for example, acute bacterial infections, increased shortness of breath, or coughing up blood) that require hospitalization.

    L. What is chronic pulmonary hypertension and how do we evaluate it?

    1. Chronic pulmonary hypertension is an increase in the blood pressure of the blood vessels of the lungs. If pulmonary hypertension is not adequately treated, it can eventually result in right heart failure. We evaluate chronic pulmonary hypertension due to any cause under 3.09.

    2. Chronic pulmonary hypertension is usually diagnosed by catheterization of the pulmonary artery. We will not purchase cardiac catheterization.

    M. How do we evaluate lung transplantation? If you receive a lung transplant (or a lung transplant simultaneously with other organs, such as the heart), we will consider you to be disabled under 3.11 for 3 years from the date of the transplant. After that, we evaluate your residual impairment(s) by considering the adequacy of your post-transplant function, the frequency and severity of any rejection episodes you have, complications in other body systems, and adverse treatment effects. People who receive organ transplants generally have impairments that meet our definition of disability before they undergo transplantation. The phrase “consider under a disability for 3 years” in 3.11 does not refer to the date on which your disability began, only to the date on which we must reevaluate whether your impairment(s) continues to meet a listing or is otherwise disabling. We determine the onset of your disability based on the facts of your case.

    N. What is respiratory failure and how do we evaluate it? Respiratory failure is the inability of the lungs to perform their basic function of gas exchange. We evaluate respiratory failure under 3.04D if you have CF-related respiratory failure, or under 3.14 if you have respiratory failure due to any other chronic respiratory disorder. Continuous positive airway pressure does not satisfy the criterion in 3.04D or 3.14, and cannot be substituted as an equivalent finding, for invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP.

    O. How do we consider the effects of obesity when we evaluate your respiratory disorder? Obesity is a medically determinable impairment that is often associated with respiratory disorders. Obesity makes it harder for the chest and lungs to expand, which can compromise the ability of the respiratory system to supply adequate oxygen to the body. The combined effects of obesity with a respiratory disorder can be greater than the effects of each of the impairments considered separately. We consider any additional and cumulative effects of your obesity when we determine whether you have a severe respiratory disorder, a listing-level respiratory disorder, a combination of impairments that medically equals the severity of a listed impairment, and when we assess your residual functional capacity.

    P. What are sleep-related breathing disorders and how do we evaluate them?

    1. Sleep-related breathing disorders (for example, sleep apnea) are characterized by transient episodes of interrupted breathing during sleep, which disrupt normal sleep patterns. Prolonged episodes can result in disorders such as hypoxemia (low blood oxygen) and pulmonary vasoconstriction (restricted blood flow in pulmonary blood vessels). Over time, these disorders may lead to chronic pulmonary hypertension or other complications.

    2. We evaluate the complications of sleep-related breathing disorders under the listings in the affected body system(s). For example, we evaluate chronic pulmonary hypertension due to any cause under 3.09; chronic heart failure under 4.02; and disturbances in mood, cognition, and behavior under 12.02 or another appropriate mental disorders listing. We will not purchase polysomnography (sleep study).

    Q. How do we evaluate mycobacterial, mycotic, and other chronic infections of the lungs? We evaluate chronic infections of the lungs that result in limitations in your respiratory function under 3.02.

    R. How do we evaluate respiratory disorders that do not meet one of these listings?

    1. These listings are only examples of common respiratory disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent you from doing any gainful activity. If your impairment(s) does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must also consider whether you have an impairment(s) that meets the criteria of a listing in another body system. For example, if your CF has resulted in chronic pancreatic or hepatobiliary disease, we evaluate your impairment under the listings in 5.00.

    2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. See §§ 404.1526 and 416.926 of this chapter. Respiratory disorders may be associated with disorders in other body systems, and we consider the combined effects of multiple impairments when we determine whether they medically equal a listing. If your impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a listing, you may or may not have the residual functional capacity to engage in substantial gainful activity. We proceed to the fourth step and, if necessary, the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process in §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 of this chapter. We use the rules in §§ 404.1594 and 416.994 of this chapter, as appropriate, when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.

    3.01 Category of Impairments, Respiratory Disorders

    3.02 Chronic respiratory disorders due to any cause except CF (for CF, see 3.04) with A, B, C, or D:

    A. FEV1 (see 3.00E) less than or equal to the value in Table I-A or I-B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 3.00E3a).

    Table I—FEV1 Criteria for 3.02A Height without shoes
  • (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Table I-A Age 18 to attainment of age 20 Females FEV1 less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males FEV1 less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Table I-B Age 20 or older Females FEV1 less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males FEV1 less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • <153.0 <60.25 1.20 1.45 1.05 1.20 153.0 to <159.0 60.25 to <62.50 1.30 1.55 1.15 1.35 159.0 to <164.0 62.50 to <64.50 1.40 1.65 1.25 1.40 164.0 to <169.0 64.50 to <66.50 1.45 1.75 1.35 1.50 169.0 to <174.0 66.50 to <68.50 1.55 1.85 1.45 1.60 174.0 to <180.0 68.50 to <70.75 1.65 2.00 1.55 1.75 180.0 to <185.0 70.75 to <72.75 1.75 2.10 1.65 1.85 185.0 or more 72.75 or more 1.80 2.15 1.70 1.90

    OR

    B. FVC (see 3.00E) less than or equal to the value in Table II-A or II-B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 3.00E3a).

    Table II—FVC Criteria for 3.02B Height without shoes
  • (centimeters)
  • < means less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means less than
  • Table II-A Age 18 to attainment of age 20 Females FVC less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Females FVC less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Table II-B Age 20 or older Females FVC
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males
  • FVC
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • <153.0 <60.25 1.35 1.65 1.30 1.50 153.0 to <159.0 60.25 to <62.50 1.50 1.80 1.40 1.65 159.0 to <164.0 62.50 to <64.50 1.60 1.90 1.50 1.75 164.0 to <169.0 64.50 to <66.50 1.70 2.05 1.60 1.90 169.0 to <174.0 66.50 to <68.50 1.80 2.20 1.70 2.00 174.0 to <180.0 68.50 to <70.75 1.90 2.35 1.85 2.20 180.0 to <185.0 70.75 to <72.75 2.05 2.50 1.95 2.30 185.0 or more 72.75 or more 2.10 2.60 2.00 2.40

    OR

    C. Chronic impairment of gas exchange demonstrated by 1, 2, or 3:

    1. Average of two unadjusted, single-breath DLCO measurements (see 3.00F) less than or equal to the value in Table III for your gender and height without shoes (see 3.00F3a); or

    Table III—DLCO Criteria for 3.02C1 Height without shoes
  • (centimeters)
  • < means less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means less than
  • Females DLCO less than or equal to
  • (mL CO (STPD)/min/mmHg)
  • Males DLCO less than or equal to
  • (mL CO (STPD)/min/mmHg)
  • <153.0 < 60.25 8.0 9.0 153.0 to <159.0 60.25 to <62.50 8.5 9.5 159.0 to <164.0 62.50 to <64.50 9.0 10.0 164.0 to <169.0 64.50 to <66.50 9.5 10.5 169.0 to <174.0 66.50 to <68.50 10.0 11.0 174.0 to <180.0 68.50 to <70.75 10.5 11.5 180.0 to <185.0 70.75 to <72.75 11.0 12.0 185.0 or more 72.75 or more 11.5 12.5

    2. Arterial PaO2 and PaCO2 measured concurrently by an ABG test, while at rest or during steady state exercise, breathing room air (see 3.00G3b), less than or equal to the applicable values in Table IV-A, IV-B, or IV-C; or

    Tables IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C—ABG Criteria for 3.02C2 Table IV-A [Applicable at test sites less than 3,000 feet above sea level] Arterial PaCO2 (mm Hg) and Arterial PaO2 less than or equal to
  • (mm Hg)
  • 30 or below 65 31 64 32 63 33 62 34 61 35 60 36 59 37 58 38 57 39 56 40 or above 55
    Table IV-B [Applicable at test sites from 3,000 through 6,000 feet above sea level] Arterial PaCO2 (mm Hg) and Arterial PaO2 less than or equal to
  • (mm Hg)
  • 30 or below 60 31 59 32 58 33 57 34 56 35 55 36 54 37 53 38 52 39 51 40 or above 50
    Table IV-C [Applicable at test sites over 6,000 feet above sea level] Arterial PaCO2 (mm Hg) and Arterial PaO2 less than or equal to
  • (mm Hg)
  • 30 or below 55 31 54 32 53 33 52 34 51 35 50 36 49 37 48 38 47 39 46 40 or above 45

    3. SpO2 measured by pulse oximetry (see 3.00H2) either at rest, during a 6MWT, or after a 6MWT, less than or equal to the value in Table V.

    Table V—SpO2 Criteria for 3.02C3 Test site altitude
  • (feet above sea level)
  • SpO2 less than or equal to
    Less than 3,000 87 percent. 3,000 through 6,000 85 percent. Over 6,000 83 percent.

    OR

    D. Exacerbations or complications requiring three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review). Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, including hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization.

    3.03 Asthma (see 3.00I), with both A and B:

    A. FEV1 (see 3.00E1) less than or equal to the value in Table VI-A or VI-B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 3.00E3a) measured within the same 12-month period as the hospitalizations in 3.03B.

    Table VI—FEV1 Criteria for 3.03A Height without shoes
  • (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Table VI-A Age 18 to attainment of age 20 Females FEV1
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males
  • FEV1
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Table VI-B Age 20 or older Females FEV1
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males
  • FEV1
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • <153.0 <60.25 1.65 1.90 1.45 1.60 153.0 to <159.0 60.25 to <62.50 1.75 2.05 1.55 1.75 159.0 to <164.0 62.50 to <64.50 1.85 2.15 1.65 1.90 164.0 to <169.0 64.50 to <66.50 1.95 2.30 1.75 2.00 169.0 to <174.0 66.50 to <68.50 2.05 2.45 1.85 2.15 174.0 to <180.0 68.50 to <70.75 2.20 2.60 2.00 2.30 180.0 to <185.0 70.75 to <72.75 2.35 2.75 2.10 2.45 185.0 or more 72.75 or more 2.40 2.85 2.20 2.55

    AND

    B. Exacerbations or complications requiring three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review). Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, including hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. Consider under a disability for 1 year from the discharge date of the last hospitalization; after that, evaluate the residual impairment(s) under 3.03 or another appropriate listing.

    3.04 Cystic fibrosis (documented as described in 3.00J2) with A, B, C, D, E, F, or G:

    A. FEV1 (see 3.00E) less than or equal to the value in Table VII-A or VII-B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 3.00E3a).

    Table VII—FEV1 Criteria for 3.04A Height without shoes
  • (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Table VII-A Age 18 to attainment of age 20 Females
  • FEV1
  • less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males
  • FEV1
  • less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Table VII-B Age 20 or older Females
  • FEV1
  • less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males
  • FEV1
  • less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • <153.0 <60.25 1.65 1.90 1.45 1.60 153.0 to <159.0 60.25 to <62.50 1.75 2.05 1.55 1.75 159.0 to <164.0 62.50 to <64.50 1.85 2.15 1.65 1.90 164.0 to <169.0 64.50 to <66.50 1.95 2.30 1.75 2.00 169.0 to <174.0 66.50 to <68.50 2.05 2.45 1.85 2.15 174.0 to <180.0 68.50 to <70.75 2.20 2.60 2.00 2.30 180.0 to <185.0 70.75 to <72.75 2.35 2.75 2.10 2.45 185.0 or more 72.75 or more 2.40 2.85 2.20 2.55

    OR

    B. Exacerbations or complications (see 3.00J3) requiring three hospitalizations of any length within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review).

    OR

    C. Spontaneous pneumothorax, secondary to CF, requiring chest tube placement.

    OR

    D. Respiratory failure (see 3.00N) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP, or a combination of both treatments, for a continuous period of at least 48 hours, or for a continuous period of at least 72 hours if postoperatively.

    OR

    E. Pulmonary hemorrhage requiring vascular embolization to control bleeding.

    OR

    F. SpO2 measured by pulse oximetry (see 3.00H3) either at rest, during a 6MWT, or after a 6MWT, less than or equal to the value in Table VIII, twice within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review).

    Tables VIII—SpO2 Criteria for 3.04F Test site altitude
  • (feet above sea level)
  • SpO2 less than or equal to
    Less than 3,000 89 percent. 3,000 through 6,000 87 percent. Over 6,000 85 percent.

    OR

    G. Two of the following exacerbations or complications (either two of the same or two different, see 3.00J3 and 3.00J4) within a 12-month period (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review):

    1. Pulmonary exacerbation requiring 10 consecutive days of intravenous antibiotic treatment.

    2. Pulmonary hemorrhage (hemoptysis with more than blood-streaked sputum but not requiring vascular embolization) requiring hospitalization of any length.

    3. Weight loss requiring daily supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy for at least 90 consecutive days or parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter for at least 90 consecutive days.

    4. CFRD requiring daily insulin therapy for at least 90 consecutive days.

    3.05 [Reserved]

    3.06 [Reserved]

    3.07 Bronchiectasis (see 3.00K), documented by imaging (see 3.00D3), with exacerbations or complications requiring three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review). Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, including hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization.

    3.08 [Reserved]

    3.09 Chronic pulmonary hypertension due to any cause (see 3.00L) documented by mean pulmonary artery pressure equal to or greater than 40 mm Hg as determined by cardiac catheterization while medically stable (see 3.00E2a).

    3.10 [Reserved]

    3.11 Lung transplantation (see 3.00M). Consider under a disability for 3 years from the date of the transplant; after that, evaluate the residual impairment(s).

    3.12 [Reserved]

    3.13 [Reserved]

    3.14 Respiratory failure (see 3.00N) resulting from any underlying chronic respiratory disorder except CF (for CF, see 3.04D), requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP, or a combination of both treatments, for a continuous period of at least 48 hours, or for a continuous period of at least 72 hours if postoperatively, twice within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review).

    Part B

    103.00 Respiratory Disorders.

    103.00 Respiratory Disorders

    A. Which disorders do we evaluate in this body system?

    1. We evaluate respiratory disorders that result in obstruction (difficulty moving air out of the lungs) or restriction (difficulty moving air into the lungs), or that interfere with diffusion (gas exchange) across cell membranes in the lungs. Examples of such disorders and the listings we use to evaluate them include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (103.02), chronic lung disease of infancy (also known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia, 103.02C or 103.02E), pulmonary fibrosis (103.02), asthma (103.02 or 103.03), and cystic fibrosis (103.04). We also use listings in this body system to evaluate respiratory failure resulting from an underlying chronic respiratory disorder (103.04E or 103.14) and lung transplantation (103.11).

    2. We evaluate cancers affecting the respiratory system under the listings in 113.00. We evaluate the pulmonary effects of neuromuscular and autoimmune disorders under these listings or under the listings in 111.00 or 114.00, respectively.

    B. What are the symptoms and signs of respiratory disorders? Symptoms and signs of respiratory disorders include dyspnea (shortness of breath), chest pain, coughing, wheezing, sputum production, hemoptysis (coughing up blood from the respiratory tract), use of accessory muscles of respiration, and tachypnea (rapid rate of breathing).

    C. What abbreviations do we use in this body system?

    1. BiPAP means bi-level positive airway pressure ventilation.

    2. BTPS means body temperature and ambient pressure, saturated with water vapor.

    3. CF means cystic fibrosis.

    4. CFRD means CF-related diabetes.

    5. CFTR means CF transmembrane conductance regulator.

    6. CLD means chronic lung disease of infancy.

    7. FEV 1 means forced expiratory volume in the first second of a forced expiratory maneuver.

    8. FVC means forced vital capacity.

    9. L means liter.

    D. What documentation do we need to evaluate your respiratory disorder?

    1. We need medical evidence to document and assess the severity of your respiratory disorder. Medical evidence should include your medical history, physical examination findings, the results of imaging (see 103.00D3), spirometry (see 103.00E), other relevant laboratory tests, and descriptions of any prescribed treatment and your response to it. We may not need all of this evidence depending on your particular respiratory disorder and its effects on you.

    2. If you use supplemental oxygen, we still need medical evidence to establish the severity of your respiratory disorder.

    3. Imaging refers to medical imaging techniques, such as x-ray and computerized tomography. The imaging must be consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice as the proper technique to support the evaluation of the disorder.

    E. What is spirometry and what are our requirements for an acceptable test and report?

    1. Spirometry, which measures how well you move air into and out of your lungs, involves at least three forced expiratory maneuvers during the same test session. A forced expiratory maneuver is a maximum inhalation followed by a forced maximum exhalation, and measures exhaled volumes of air over time. The volume of air you exhale in the first second of the forced expiratory maneuver is the FEV1. The total volume of air that you exhale during the entire forced expiratory maneuver is the FVC. We use your highest FEV1 value to evaluate your respiratory disorder under 103.02A and 103.04A, and your highest FVC value to evaluate your respiratory disorder under 103.02B, regardless of whether the values are from the same forced expiratory maneuver or different forced expiratory maneuvers. We will not purchase spirometry for children who have not attained age 6.

    2. We have the following requirements for spirometry under these listings:

    a. You must be medically stable at the time of the test. Examples of when we would not consider you to be medically stable include when you are:

    (i) Within 2 weeks of a change in your prescribed respiratory medication.

    (ii) Experiencing, or within 30 days of completion of treatment for, a lower respiratory tract infection.

    (iii) Experiencing, or within 30 days of completion of treatment for, an acute exacerbation (temporary worsening) of a chronic respiratory disorder. Wheezing by itself does not indicate that you are not medically stable.

    b. During testing, if your FEV1 is less than 70 percent of your predicted normal value, we require repeat spirometry after inhalation of a bronchodilator to evaluate your respiratory disorder under these listings, unless it is medically contraindicated. If you used a bronchodilator before the test and your FEV1 is less than 70 percent of your predicted normal value, we still require repeat spirometry after inhalation of a bronchodilator unless the supervising physician determines that it is not safe for you to take a bronchodilator again (in which case we may need to reschedule the test). If you do not have post-bronchodilator spirometry, the test report must explain why. We can use the results of spirometry administered without bronchodilators when the use of bronchodilators is medically contraindicated.

    c. Your forced expiratory maneuvers must be satisfactory. We consider a forced expiratory maneuver to be satisfactory when you exhale with maximum effort following a full inspiration, and when the test tracing has a sharp takeoff and rapid rise to peak flow, has a smooth contour, and either lasts for at least 6 seconds (for children age 10 and older) or for at least 3 seconds (for children who have not attained age 10), or maintains a plateau for at least 1 second.

    3. The spirometry report must include the following information:

    a. The date of the test and your name, age or date of birth, gender, and height without shoes. (We will assume that your recorded height on the date of the test is without shoes, unless we have evidence to the contrary.) If your spine is abnormally curved (for example, you have kyphoscoliosis), we will substitute the longest distance between your outstretched fingertips with your arms abducted 90 degrees in place of your height when this measurement is greater than your standing height without shoes.

    b. Any factors, if applicable, that can affect the interpretation of the test results (for example, your cooperation or effort in doing the test).

    c. Legible tracings of your forced expiratory maneuvers in a volume-time format showing your name and the date of the test for each maneuver.

    4. If you have attained age 6, we may need to purchase spirometry to determine whether your disorder meets a listing, unless we can make a fully favorable determination or decision on another basis.

    5. Before we purchase spirometry for a child age 6 or older, a medical consultant (see § 416.1016 of this chapter), preferably one with experience in the care of children with respiratory disorders, must review your case record to determine if we need the test. If we purchase spirometry, the medical source we designate to administer the test is solely responsible for deciding whether it is safe for you to do the test and for how to administer it.

    F. What is CLD and how do we evaluate it?

    1. CLD, also known as bronchopulmonary dysplasia, or BPD, is scarring of the immature lung. CLD may develop as a complication of mechanical ventilation and oxygen therapy for infants with significant neonatal respiratory problems. Within the first 6 months of life, most infants with CLD are successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation, and then weaned from oxygen supplementation. We evaluate CLD under 103.02C, 103.02E, or if you are age 2 or older, under 103.03 or another appropriate listing.

    2. If you have CLD, are not yet 6 months old, and need 24-hour-per-day oxygen supplementation, we will not evaluate your CLD under 103.02C until you are 6 months old. Depending on the evidence in your case record, we may make a fully favorable determination or decision under other rules before you are 6 months old.

    3. We evaluate your CLD under 103.02C if you are at least 6 months old and you need 24-hour-per-day oxygen supplementation. (If you were born prematurely, we use your corrected chronological age. See § 416.924b(b) of this chapter.) We also evaluate your CLD under 103.02C if you were weaned off oxygen supplementation but needed it again by the time you were 6 months old or older.

    4. We evaluate your CLD under 103.02E if you are any age from birth to the attainment of age 2 and have CLD exacerbations or complications (for example, wheezing, lower respiratory tract infections, or acute respiratory distress) that require hospitalization. For the purpose of 103.02E, we count your initial birth hospitalization as one hospitalization. The phrase “consider under a disability for 1 year from the discharge date of the last hospitalization or until the attainment of age 2, whichever is later” in 103.02E does not refer to the date on which your disability began, only to the date on which we must reevaluate whether your impairment(s) continues to meet a listing or is otherwise disabling.

    G. What is asthma and how do we evaluate it?

    1. Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the lung airways that we evaluate under 103.02 or 103.03. If you have respiratory failure resulting from chronic asthma (see 103.00J), we will evaluate it under 103.14.

    2. For the purposes of 103.03:

    a. The phrase “consider under a disability for 1 year” explains how long your asthma can meet the requirements of the listing. It does not refer to the date on which your disability began, only to the date on which we must reevaluate whether your asthma continues to meet a listing or is otherwise disabling.

    b. We determine the onset of your disability based on the facts of your case, but it will be no later than the admission date of your first of three hospitalizations that satisfy the criteria of 103.03.

    H. What is CF and how do we evaluate it?

    1. General. We evaluate CF, a genetic disorder that results in abnormal salt and water transport across cell membranes in the lungs, pancreas, and other body organs, under 103.04. We need the evidence described in 103.00H2 to establish that you have CF.

    2. Documentation of CF. We need a report signed by a physician (see § 416.913(a) of this chapter) showing both a and b:

    a. One of the following:

    (i) A positive newborn screen for CF; or

    (ii) A history of CF in a sibling; or

    (iii) Documentation of at least one specific CF phenotype or clinical criterion (for example, chronic sino-pulmonary disease with persistent colonization or infections with typical CF pathogens, pancreatic insufficiency, or salt-loss syndromes); and

    b. One of the following definitive laboratory tests:

    (i) An elevated sweat chloride concentration equal to or greater than 60 millimoles per L; or

    (ii) The identification of two CF gene mutations affecting the CFTR; or

    (iii) Characteristic abnormalities in ion transport across the nasal epithelium.

    c. When we have the report showing a and b, but it is not signed by a physician, we also need a report from a physician stating that you have CF.

    d. When we do not have the report showing a and b, we need a report from a physician that is persuasive that a positive diagnosis of CF was confirmed by an appropriate definitive laboratory test. To be persuasive, this report must include a statement by the physician that you had the appropriate definitive laboratory test for diagnosing CF. The report must provide the test results or explain how your diagnosis was established that is consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.

    3. CF pulmonary exacerbations. Examples of CF pulmonary exacerbations include increased cough and sputum production, hemoptysis, increased shortness of breath, increased fatigue, and reduction in pulmonary function. Treatment usually includes intravenous antibiotics and intensified airway clearance therapy (for example, increased frequencies of chest percussion or increased use of inhaled nebulized therapies, such as bronchodilators or mucolytics).

    4. For 103.04G, we require any two exacerbations or complications from the list in 103.04G1 through 103.04G4 within a 12-month period. You may have two of the same exacerbation or complication or two different ones.

    a. If you have two of the acute exacerbations or complications we describe in 103.04G1 and 103.04G2, there must be at least 30 days between the two.

    b. If you have one of the acute exacerbations or complications we describe in 103.04G1 and 103.04G2 and one of the chronic complications we describe in 103.04G3 and 103.04G4, the two can occur during the same time. For example, your CF meets 103.04G if you have the pulmonary hemorrhage we describe in 103.04G2 and the weight loss we describe in 103.04G3 even if the pulmonary hemorrhage occurs during the 90-day period in 103.04G3.

    c. Your CF also meets 103.04G if you have both of the chronic complications in 103.04G3 and 103.04G4.

    5. CF may also affect other body systems such as digestive or endocrine. If your CF, including pulmonary exacerbations and nonpulmonary complications, does not meet or medically equal a respiratory disorders listing, we may evaluate your CF-related impairments under the listings in the affected body system.

    I. How do we evaluate lung transplantation? If you receive a lung transplant (or a lung transplant simultaneously with other organs, such as the heart), we will consider you to be disabled under 103.11 for 3 years from the date of the transplant. After that, we evaluate your residual impairment(s) by considering the adequacy of your post-transplant function, the frequency and severity of any rejection episodes you have, complications in other body systems, and adverse treatment effects. Children who receive organ transplants generally have impairments that meet our definition of disability before they undergo transplantation. The phrase “consider under a disability for 3 years” in 103.11 does not refer to the date on which your disability began, only to the date on which we must reevaluate whether your impairment(s) continues to meet a listing or is otherwise disabling. We determine the onset of your disability based on the facts of your case.

    J. What is respiratory failure and how do we evaluate it? Respiratory failure is the inability of the lungs to perform their basic function of gas exchange. We evaluate respiratory failure under 103.04E if you have CF-related respiratory failure, or under 103.14 if you have respiratory failure due to any other chronic respiratory disorder. Continuous positive airway pressure does not satisfy the criterion in 103.04E or 103.14, and cannot be substituted as an equivalent finding, for invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP.

    K. How do we evaluate growth failure due to any chronic respiratory disorder?

    1. To evaluate growth failure due to any chronic respiratory disorder, we require documentation of the oxygen supplementation described in 103.06A and the growth measurements in 103.06B within the same consecutive 12-month period. The dates of oxygen supplementation may be different from the dates of growth measurements.

    2. Under 103.06B, we use the appropriate table(s) under 105.08B in the digestive system to determine whether a child's growth is less than the third percentile.

    a. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, we use the weight-for-length table corresponding to the child's gender (Table I or Table II).

    b. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, we use the body mass index (BMI)-for-age table corresponding to the child's gender (Table III or Table IV).

    c. BMI is the ratio of a child's weight to the square of his or her height. We calculate BMI using the formulas in 105.00G2c.

    L. How do we evaluate respiratory disorders that do not meet one of these listings?

    1. These listings are only examples of common respiratory disorders that we consider severe enough to result in marked and severe functional limitations. If your impairment(s) does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must also consider whether you have an impairment(s) that meets the criteria of a listing in another body system. For example, if your CF has resulted in chronic pancreatic or hepatobiliary disease, we evaluate your impairment under the listings in 105.00.

    2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. See § 416.926 of this chapter. Respiratory disorders may be associated with disorders in other body systems, and we consider the combined effects of multiple impairments when we determine whether they medically equal a listing. If your impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a listing, we will also consider whether it functionally equals the listings. See § 416.926a of this chapter. We use the rules in § 416.994a of this chapter when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.

    103.01 Category of Impairments, Respiratory Disorders

    103.02 Chronic respiratory disorders due to any cause except CF (for CF, see 103.04), with A, B, C, D, or E:

    A. FEV1 (see 103.00E) less than or equal to the value in Table I-A or I-B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 103.00E3a).

    Table I—FEV1 Criteria for 103.02A Table I-A Age 6 to attainment of age 13
  • (for both females and males)
  • Height without shoes
  • (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • FEV1
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Table I-B Age 13 to attainment of age 18 Height without shoes
  • (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Females FEV1 less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males FEV1 less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • <123.0 <48.50 0.80 <153.0 <60.25 1.35 1.40 123.0 to <129.0 48.50 to <50.75 0.90 153.0 to <159.0 60.25 to <62.50 1.45 1.50 129.0 to <134.0 50.75 to <52.75 1.00 159.0 to <164.0 62.50 to <64.50 1.55 1.60 134.0 to <139.0 52.75 to <54.75 1.10 164.0 to <169.0 64.50 to <66.50 1.65 1.70 139.0 to <144.0 54.75 to <56.75 1.20 169.0 to <174.0 66.50 to <68.50 1.75 1.85 144.0 to <149.0 56.75 to <58.75 1.30 174.0 to <180.0 68.50 to <70.75 1.85 2.00 149.0 or more 58.75 or more 1.40 180.0 or more 70.75 or more 1.95 2.10

    OR

    B. FVC (see 103.00E) less than or equal to the value in Table II-A or II-B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 103.00E3a).

    Table II—FVC Criteria for 103.02B Table II-A Age 6 to attainment of age 13
  • (for both females and males)
  • Height without shoes (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • FVC
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Table II-B Age 13 to attainment of age 18 Height without shoes
  • (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Females
  • FVC
  • less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males
  • FVC
  • less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • <123.0 <48.50 0.85 <153.0 <60.25 1.65 1.65 123.0 to <129.0 48.50 to <50.75 1.00 153.0 to <159.0 60.25 to <62.50 1.70 1.80 129.0 to <134.0 50.75 to <52.75 1.10 159.0 to <164.0 62.50 to <64.50 1.80 1.95 134.0 to <139.0 52.75 to <54.75 1.30 164.0 to <169.0 64.50 to <66.50 1.95 2.10 139.0 to <144.0 54.75 to <56.75 1.40 169.0 to <174.0 66.50 to <68.50 2.05 2.25 144.0 to <149.0 56.75 to <58.75 1.55 174.0 to <180.0 68.50 to <70.75 2.20 2.45 149.0 or more 58.75 or more 1.70 180.0 or more 70.75 or more 2.30 2.55

    OR

    C. Hypoxemia with the need for at least 1.0 L per minute of continuous (24 hours per day) oxygen supplementation for at least 90 consecutive days.

    OR

    D. The presence of a tracheostomy.

    1. Consider under a disability until the attainment of age 3; or

    2. Upon the attainment of age 3, documented need for mechanical ventilation via a tracheostomy for at least 4 hours per day and for at least 90 consecutive days.

    OR

    E. For children who have not attained age 2, CLD (see 103.00F) with exacerbations or complications requiring three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review). Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, including hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. (A child's initial birth hospitalization when CLD is first diagnosed counts as one hospitalization.) Consider under a disability for 1 year from the discharge date of the last hospitalization or until the attainment of age 2, whichever is later. After that, evaluate the impairment(s) under 103.03 or another appropriate listing.

    103.03 Asthma (see 103.00G) with exacerbations or complications requiring three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review). Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, including hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. Consider under a disability for 1 year from the discharge date of the last hospitalization; after that, evaluate the residual impairment(s) under 103.03 or another appropriate listing.

    103.04 Cystic fibrosis (documented as described in 103.00H), with A, B, C, D, E, F, or G:

    A. FEV1 (see 103.00E) less than or equal to the value in Table III-A or Table III-B for your age, gender, and height without shoes (see 103.00E3a).

    Table III—FEV1 Criteria for 103.04A Table III-A Age 6 to attainment of age 13
  • (for both females and males)
  • Height without shoes (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • FEV1
  • less than or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Table III-B Age 13 to attainment of age 18 Height without shoes (centimeters)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Height without shoes
  • (inches)
  • < means
  • less than
  • Females
  • FEV1
  • less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • Males
  • FEV1
  • less than
  • or equal to
  • (L, BTPS)
  • <123.0 <48.50 1.00 <153.0 <60.25 1.75 1.85 123.0 to <129.0 48.50 to <50.75 1.15 153.0 to <159.0 60.25 to <62.50 1.85 2.05 129.0 to <134.0 50.75 to <52.75 1.25 159.0 to <164.0 62.50 to <64.50 1.95 2.15 134.0 to <139.0 52.75 to <54.75 1.40 164.0 to <169.0 64.50 to <66.50 2.10 2.30 139.0 to <144.0 54.75 to <56.75 1.50 169.0 to <174.0 66.50 to <68.50 2.25 2.45 144.0 to <149.0 56.75 to <58.75 1.70 174.0 to <180.0 68.50 to <70.75 2.35 2.60 149.0 or more 58.75 or more 1.80 180.0 or more 70.75 or more 2.50 2.70

    OR

    B. For children who have not attained age 6, findings on imaging (see 103.00D3) of thickening of the proximal bronchial airways, nodular-cystic lesions, segmental or lobular atelectasis, or consolidation, and documentation of one of the following:

    1. Shortness of breath with activity; or

    2. Accumulation of secretions as manifested by repetitive coughing; or

    3. Bilateral rales or rhonchi, or reduction of breath sounds.

    OR

    C. Exacerbations or complications (see 103.00H3) requiring three hospitalizations of any length within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review).

    OR

    D. Spontaneous pneumothorax, secondary to CF, requiring chest tube placement.

    OR

    E. Respiratory failure (see 103.00J) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP, or a combination of both treatments, for a continuous period of at least 48 hours, or for a continuous period of at least 72 hours if postoperatively.

    OR

    F. Pulmonary hemorrhage requiring vascular embolization to control bleeding.

    OR

    G. Two of the following exacerbations or complications (either two of the same or two different, see 103.00H3 and 103.00H4) within a 12-month period (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review):

    1. Pulmonary exacerbation requiring 10 consecutive days of intravenous antibiotic treatment.

    2. Pulmonary hemorrhage (hemoptysis with more than blood-streaked sputum but not requiring vascular embolization) requiring hospitalization of any length.

    3. Weight loss requiring daily supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy for at least 90 consecutive days or parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter for at least 90 consecutive days.

    4. CFRD requiring daily insulin therapy for at least 90 consecutive days.

    103.05 [Reserved]

    103.06 Growth failure due to any chronic respiratory disorder (see 103.00K), documented by:

    A. Hypoxemia with the need for at least 1.0 L per min of oxygen supplementation for at least 4 hours per day and for at least 90 consecutive days.

    AND

    B. Growth failure as required in 1 or 2:

    1. For children from birth to attainment of age 2, three weight-for-length measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate weight-for-length table under 105.08B1; or

    2. For children age 2 to attainment of age 18, three BMI-for-age measurements that are:

    a. Within a consecutive 12-month period; and

    b. At least 60 days apart; and

    c. Less than the third percentile on the appropriate BMI-for-age table under 105.08B2.

    103.07 [Reserved]

    103.08 [Reserved]

    103.09 [Reserved]

    103.10 [Reserved]

    103.11 Lung transplantation (see 103.00I). Consider under a disability for 3 years from the date of the transplant; after that, evaluate the residual impairment(s).

    103.12 [Reserved]

    103.13 [Reserved]

    103.14 Respiratory failure (see 103.00J) resulting from any underlying chronic respiratory disorder except CF (for CF, see 103.04E), requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP, or a combination of both treatments, for a continuous period of at least 48 hours, or for a continuous period of at least 72 hours if postoperatively, twice within a 12-month period and at least 30 days apart (the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in connection with your application or continuing disability review).

    PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart I—Determining Disability and Blindness 3. The authority citation for subpart I of part 416 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note).

    § 416.926a [Amended]
    4. Amend § 416.926a by removing paragraph (m)(1) and redesignating paragraphs (m)(2) through (6) as (m)(1) through (5).
    [FR Doc. 2016-13275 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 14 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Advisory Committee; Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee; Termination AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the termination of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee. This document removes the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee from the Agency's list of standing advisory committees.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Emery, Division of Scientific Advisors and Consultants, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6132, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8054, FAX: 301-595-1307, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee (the Committee) was established on June 9, 1995 (60 FR 31311, June 14, 1995; 21 CFR 14.100 erroneously lists the date of establishment as June 21, 1995). The Committee reviews and evaluates available scientific data concerning the safety of products that may be a risk for transmission of spongiform encephalopathies having an impact on the public health as determined by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The Committee makes recommendations to the Commissioner regarding the regulation of such products. In recent years, the number of issues requiring Committee advice has declined, and the Committee has met very infrequently. Therefore, the effort and expense of maintaining this advisory committee is no longer justified. Any relevant Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy issues in the future could be addressed by the Agency's other advisory committees, such as the Agency's Blood Products Advisory Committee, with additional augmentation of expertise by appropriate subject matter experts serving as temporary members on the committee.

    The Committee is no longer needed and will be terminated on June 9, 2016.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d) and 21 CFR 10.40 (d) and (e), the Agency finds good cause to dispense with notice and public comment procedures and to proceed to an immediate effective date on this rule. Notice and public comment and a delayed effective date are unnecessary and are not in the public interest as this final rule merely removes the name of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee from the list of standing advisory committees in 21 CFR 14.100.

    Therefore, the Agency is amending 21 CFR 14.100(b) as set forth in the regulatory text of this document.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 14

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 14 is amended as follows:

    PART 14—PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. App. 2; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461, 21 U.S.C. 41-50, 141-149, 321-394, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42 U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264; Pub. L. 107-109; Pub. L. 108-155.

    § 14.100 [Amended]
    2. In § 14.100, redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(4) and remove paragraph (b)(6).
    Dated: June 6, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13705 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue 30 CFR Part 1241 [Docket No. ONRR-2016-0002; DS63644000 DR2PS0000.CH7000167D0102R2] RIN 1012-AA17 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) publishes this interim final rule to adjust the amount of our civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for inflation with an initial “catch-up” adjustment under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 11, 2016. Comments will be accepted until August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments to ONRR by one of the following three methods. (Please reference the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1012-AA17 in your comments.). See also Public Availability of Comments under Procedural Requirements.

    1. Electronically, go to www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter “ONRR-2016-0002,” and then click “Search.” Follow the instructions to submit public comments. ONRR will post all comments.

    2. Mail comments to Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, ONRR, P.O. Box 25165, MS 64400B, Denver, Colorado 80225.

    3. Hand-carry comments, or use an overnight courier service to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Building 53, Entrance E-20, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For comments or questions on procedural issues, contact Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, by telephone at (303) 231-3418 or email to [email protected] For questions on technical issues, contact Geary Keeton, Chief of Enforcement, by telephone at (303) 231-3096 or email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background II. Method of Calculation III. Summary of Final Rule IV. Procedural Requirements I. Background

    On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the Act). The Act requires Federal agencies to adjust each CMP amount with an initial catch-up adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual inflationary adjustments. The new CMP amounts must be published by July 1, 2016, and take effect no later than August 1, 2016. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to foster compliance with the law.

    The Act provides that any increase in a CMP due to the calculated inflation adjustments shall apply only to a violation that occurs after the date when the increase takes effect and states that the initial inflation adjustment may not exceed 150 percent of the amount of the CMP on November 2, 2015.

    II. Method of Calculation

    OMB issued guidance on calculating the catch-up adjustments. See February 24, 2016, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, re: Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. Under this guidance, the Department of the Interior (Department) has identified applicable CMPs and calculated the catch-up adjustments. A CMP is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding. A CMP does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute, fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory review.

    Under the Act, the inflation adjustment for each applicable CMP is determined by increasing the maximum CMP amount per violation by the cost-of-living adjustment. The cost-of-living adjustment is defined as the percent by which the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October of the calendar year preceding the adjustment exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October of the year in which the amount of such CMP was last set or adjusted pursuant to law.

    The maximum CMP amounts for ONRR penalties under 30 U.S.C. 1719(a)-(d) were established in 1983 in the Federal Oil and Gas Management Act (FOGRMA). Since we have not updated the maximum CMP amounts for inflation since their establishment, we must calculate a new maximum CMP with an initial catch-up adjustment. The inflation adjustment amount for each maximum CMP amount is calculated by multiplying the 1983 maximum CMP amount by the 2016 CMP catch-up adjustment multiplier for 1983, which is 2.35483. In accordance with the Act, the new maximum CMP amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. For example:

    The maximum CMP amount under 30 U.S.C. 1719(a) established in 1983 is $500.

    The 2016 CMP catch-up adjustment multiplier for 1983 is 2.35483.

    Therefore, $500 × 2.35483 = $1,177.415, which rounds to $1,177.

    The new maximum CMP amount is $1,177.

    Pursuant to the Act, in the event that a violation took place prior to the effective date of the new penalty amount—and we assess a penalty after the effective date—the new penalty amount is assessed in a manner consistent with the new maximum CMP calculation. As the Act applies to penalties assessed after the effective date of the applicable adjustment, the Act adjusts penalties prospectively. The Act does not retrospectively change previously assessed or enforced penalties that we are actively collecting or have collected. The Act does not alter our statutory authority to assess penalties below the maximum amount.

    III. Summary of Final Rule

    This final rule adjusts the maximum CMP amount within each of the four established civil penalty tiers specified in 30 U.S.C. 1719(a)-(d). The following list summarizes the existing ONRR regulations containing CMPs, as well as the penalties before and after adjustment. The increases in maximum CMP amounts contained in this final rule may not necessarily affect the amount of any CMP that we may seek for a particular violation; we will calculate each CMP on a case-by-case basis.

    ONRR Regulation containing CMPs Current
  • maximum CMP
  • amount
  • Catchup
  • adjustment
  • multiplier
  • Adjusted
  • maximum CMP
  • amount
  • 30 CFR 1241.53(a) 500 2.35483 1,177 30 CFR 1241.53(b) 5,000 2.35483 11,774 30 CFR 1241.60(a) 10,000 2.35483 23,548 30 CFR 1241.60(b) 25,000 2.35483 58,871 Note: The CMP amounts under 30 CFR 1241 are authorized by 30 U.S.C. 1719(a)-(d).
    IV. Procedural Requirements 1. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public, where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act of 2015 requires agencies to adjust civil penalties with an initial catch-up adjustment through an interim final rule. An interim final rule does not include first publishing a proposed rule. Thus, the RFA does not apply to this rulemaking.

    3. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, local government agencies; or geographic regions.

    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, we are not required to provide a statement containing the information that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires because this rule is not an unfunded mandate.

    5. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    Under the criteria in section 2 of E.O. 12630, this rule does not have any significant takings implications. This rule will not impose conditions or limitations on the use of any private property. Therefore, this rule does not require a takings implication assessment.

    6. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, this rule does not require a Federalism summary impact statement.

    7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    a. Meets the criteria of section 3(a), which requires that we review all regulations to eliminate errors and ambiguity and to write them to minimize litigation.

    b. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2), which requires that we write all regulations in clear language using clear legal standards.

    8. Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)

    The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with the Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with the Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. Under the Department's consultation policy and the criteria in E.O. 13175, we evaluated this rule and determined that it will have no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and does not require consultation.

    9. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule:

    (a) Does not contain any new information collection requirements.

    (b) Does not require a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). See 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2).

    10. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action, significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We are not required to provide a detailed statement under NEPA because this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210(i) in that this rule is “. . . of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature. . . .” We also have determined that this rule is not involved in any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    11. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211 and, therefore, does not require a Statement of Energy Effects.

    12. Clarity of This Regulation

    We are required by E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), E.O. 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and E.O. 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized.

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly.

    (c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon.

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences.

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    13. Public Availability of Comments

    ONRR will post all comments, including the name and address of a respondent, at www.regulations.gov. Before including Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as your address, phone number, email address, or other personal information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment (including PII) may be made available to the public at any time. While you may ask us, in your comment, to withhold PII from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    14. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    In accordance with § 553(b), ONRR generally publishes a rule in a proposed form and solicits public comment on it before issuing the final rule. However, § 553(b)(3)(B) provides an exception to the public comment requirement if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. Good cause is shown when public comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

    ONRR finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing for public comment. We are promulgating this final rule to implement the statutory directive in the Act, which requires agencies to publish an interim final rule and to update the CMP amounts by applying a specified formula. ONRR has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for pre-promulgation public comment on this rule. Also, it would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. Thus, pre-promulgation notice and public comment is unnecessary and impracticable. These technical changes, required by law, do not substantively alter the existing regulatory framework nor in any way effect the terms under which ONRR assesses civil penalties.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 1241

    Administrative practice and procedure, Civil penalties, Coal, Geothermal, Inflation, Mineral resources, Natural gas, Notices of non-compliance, oil.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kristen J. Sarri, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ONRR amends 30 CFR part 1241 as set forth below:

    PART 1241—PENALTIES 1. The authority citation for part 1241 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 396 et seq., 396a et seq., 2101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., 351 et seq., 1001 et seq., 1701 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq., 1331 et seq., 1801 et seq. and Sec. 107, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.

    § 1241.53 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 1241.53 by: A. In paragraph (a), remove “$500” and add in its place “$1,177.” B. In paragraph (b), remove “$5,000” and add in its place “$11,774.”
    § 1241.60 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 1241.60 by: A. In paragraph (a), remove “$10,000” and add in its place “$23,548.” B. In paragraph (b), remove “$25,000” and add in its place “$58,871.”
    [FR Doc. 2016-13462 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0854] Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for a marine event taking place in the Tred Avon River, between Bellevue, MD and Oxford, MD on June 12, 2016. The date of this enforcement action has changed because the event was postponed by the sponsor due to inclement weather. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters during this event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this marine event. During the enforcement period, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or designated Marine Event Patrol may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501, listed as event (b)14 in the Table to 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. on June 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (WWM); telephone 410-576-26742, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the regulated area in 33 CFR 100.501 from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. on June 12, 2016, for the Oxford-Bellevue Sharkfest Swim. The date of this enforcement action has changed because the event was postponed by the sponsor due to inclement weather. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for this event that includes all waters of the Tred Avon River from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°42′25″ N., longitude 076°10′45″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′37″ N., longitude 076°10′26″ W., and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°41′58″ N., longitude 076°11′04″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′49″ W., thence east to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′30″ W., located at Oxford, MD. Only designated marine event participants and their vessels and official patrol vessels are authorized to enter the regulated area. As specified in § 100.501(c), during the enforcement period, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or designated Marine Event Patrol may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel in these areas shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed; (ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol; (iii) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.501(f), Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and the Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region, or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. Michael W. Batchelder Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13707 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0402] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saugatuck River, Saugatuck, CT AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North “SAGA” Bridge across the Saugatuck River, mile 1.1, at Saugatuck, Connecticut. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform timber tie and headblock replacements at the bridge.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on July 18, 2016 to 8 a.m. on August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0402] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to perform timber ties and headblocks replacement at the bridge.

    The Metro-North Saga Bridge, mile 1.1, across the Saugatuck River, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 13 feet at mean high water and 20 feet at mean low water.

    The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.221(b).

    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Metro-North Saga Bridge will operate according to the schedule below:

    a. From 8 a.m. on July 18, 2016 through 4 a.m. on July 22, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    b. From 4 a.m. on July 22, 2016 through 8 a.m. on July 25, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.

    c. From 8 a.m. on July 25, 2016 through 4 a.m. on July 29, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    d. From 4 a.m. on July 29, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 1, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.

    e. From 8 a.m. on August 1, 2016 through 4 a.m. on August 5, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    f. From 4 a.m. on August 5, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 8, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.

    g. From 8 a.m. on August 8, 2016 through 4 a.m. on August 12, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    h. From 4 a.m. on August 12, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 15, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.

    i. From 8 a.m. on August 15, 2016 through 4 a.m. on August 19, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    j. From 4 a.m. on August 19, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 22, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.

    k. From 8 a.m. on August 22, 2016 through 4 a.m. on August 26, 2016, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    l. From 4 a.m. on August 26, 2016 through 8 a.m. on August 29, 2016, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hr advance notice.

    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: June 3, 2016. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13653 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0404] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Nassau, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across Reynolds Channel, at Nassau, New York. This temporary deviation is necessary to facility public safety during a public event, the Annual Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. on June 25, 2016 to 11:59 p.m. on June 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0404] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Town of Hempstead Department of Public Safety requested and the bridge owner, Nassau County Department of Public Works, concurred with this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the Annual Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display.

    The Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across Reynolds Channel has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(g).

    Reynolds Channel is transited by commercial and recreational traffic.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Long Beach Bridges may remain in the closed position between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on June 25, 2016 (rain date: June 26, 2016 between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m.).

    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.

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

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

    Dated: June 3, 2016. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13654 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0427] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay, at Suffolk County, New York. This temporary deviation is necessary to facility public safety during a public event, the annual 5K Run for Literacy.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective on September 10, 2016 between 9:00 a.m. and 10 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0427] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Community Family Literacy Project, Inc. requested and Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the bridge owner concurred with this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the annual 5K Run for Literacy.

    The Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 18 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(d).

    Narrow Bay is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Smith Point Bridges may remain in the closed position on Saturday September 10, 2016 between 9:00 a.m. and 10 a.m.

    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.

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

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

    Dated: June 3, 2016. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13664 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0786] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Holiday Events; Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is amending the Columbus Day Weekend regulated navigation area on Biscayne Bay in Miami, Florida. The proposed amended regulation extends the Biscayne Bay regulated navigation enforcement period to New Year's Eve and Fourth of July events. It also expands the boundaries of the regulated navigation area south to Turkey Point, east to Elliott Key, west to the shoreline, and north to the Julia Tuttle Causeway. These regulations are necessary to protect the public during these events, which are periods that have historically had a significant concentration of persons and vessels on the waters of Biscayne Bay. To ensure the public's safety, all vessels within the regulated navigation area are: Required to transit the regulated navigation area at no more than 15 knots; subject to control by the Coast Guard; and required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement vessels in the area.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0786 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Benjamin Colbert, Sector Miami Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Recreational boating traffic on the waters of Biscayne Bay increases significantly during New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend events. In recent years, recreational vessel speed, especially in crossing navigational channels, contributed to incidents that resulted in severe injury and death. This regulation seeks to increase public safety on the waters of Biscayne Bay during New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend, holidays known for increased vessel traffic, by requiring vessels to travel at a maximum speed of 15 knots. It also subjects recreational vessels to the control by Coast Guard and local law enforcement authorities. On November 20, 2015 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Regulated Navigation Area; Columbus Day Weekend, New Year's Eve Events, and Fourth of July Events; Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL (80 FR 72663). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended December 21, 2015, we received no comments.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The District Seven Commander has determined that potential hazards associated with New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend events pose a safety concern for anyone on the waters of Biscayne Bay. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in Biscayne Bay before, during, and after the New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend events.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published November 20, 2015. There are no significant changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. This rule establishes a regulated navigation area Columbus Day weekend, starting at noon on the Saturday before Columbus Day through 2 a.m. on Monday (the Columbus Day holiday); from 9 p.m. December 31st until 2 a.m. January 1st; and from 7 p.m. until 2 a.m. on the night Fourth of July fireworks are scheduled in Downtown Miami and Key Biscayne.

    This regulated navigation area will encompass waters of Biscayne Bay between Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge and Turkey Point in Homestead, Florida. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Columbus Day Weekend Holidays.

    All vessels within the proposed regulated navigation area are: (1) Required to transit the regulated navigation area at no more than 15 knots; (2) subject to control by the Coast Guard; and (3) required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement vessels in the area.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Although the regulated navigation area covers most of Biscayne Bay, it is only enforced for a maximum of 38 hours during three holiday weekends. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 to provide notice of the zone and the regulations that allow vessels to enter the regulated navigation area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Revise § 165.779 to read as follows:
    § 165.779 Regulated Navigation Area; Holiday Events; Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulated navigation area encompasses all waters of Biscayne Bay between Julia Tuttle and Turkey Point contained within the following points: Beginning at Point 1 in position 25°48′43″ N, 80°08′29″ W; thence south to Point 2 in position 25°29′07″ N, 80°10′44″ W; thence southwest to Point 3 in position 25°25′51″ N, 80°12′00″ W; thence west to Point 4 in position 25°25′51″ N, 80°19′42″ W; thence north to Point 5 in position 25°29′10″ N, 80°20′58″ W; thence north to Point 6 in position 25°37′35″ N, 80°18′28″ W; thence northeast to Point 7 in position 25°48′44″ N, 80°11′17″ W; thence back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definitions. (1) The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.

    (2) The term “Columbus Day” means the federally recognized holiday occurring annually on the second Monday in October.

    (c) Regulations. All vessels within the regulated area are required to transit at no more than 15 knots, are subject to control by the Coast Guard, and must follow the instructions of designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be in enforced annually on Columbus Day weekend, starting at noon on the Saturday before Columbus Day through 2 a.m. on Monday (the Columbus Day holiday); from 9 p.m. December 31st until 2 a.m. January 1st; and from 7 p.m. until 2 a.m. on the night Fourth of July fireworks are scheduled in Downtown Miami and Key Biscayne.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. S.A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13656 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0315; FRL-9947-39-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Removal of Gasoline Vapor Recovery Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision to the Indiana state implementation plan (SIP), submittals from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated April 27, and September 10, 2015. The submittal concerns the state's Stage II vapor recovery (Stage II) program for the Indiana portion of the Chicago (Lake and Porter counties) and the Louisville, Kentucky (Clark and Floyd counties) ozone nonattainment areas. The submittal removes Stage II requirements from both nonattainment areas, as a component of the Indiana ozone SIP. The submittal also includes a demonstration under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that addresses emission impacts associated with the removal of the Stage II program. EPA proposed to approve the state's submittal on February 25, 2016, and received no comments.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0315. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What is being addressed by this document?

    On February 25, 2016, at 81 FR 9391, EPA proposed to approve amendments to 326 IAC 8-4-6 and 326 IAC 8-4-1 of the Indiana Administrative Code, removing Stage II requirements from the Indiana's Federally-approved ozone SIP. The revision included copies of 326 IAC 8-4-1 and 326 IAC 8-4-6, as published in the Indiana Register on March 4, 2015 (Document ID Number: 20150304-IR-326120636FRA); a summary of state-specific calculations based on EPA guidance used to calculate program benefits and demonstrate widespread use of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) in Indiana; and a section 110(l) demonstration that includes offset emission documentation that addresses the 2013-2015 period, when Stage II requirements were waived in Indiana but widespread use of ORVR had not yet occurred.

    II. What comments did we receive on the proposed SIP revision?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period on the proposed action. The comment period closed on March 28, 2016. EPA received no comments.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Indiana ozone SIP submitted dated April 27, and September 10, 2015, concerning the state's Stage II program in Indiana. EPA finds that the revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana Regulations described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended under “Article 8: Volatile Organic Compound Rules”, “Rule 4: Petroleum Sources” by revising the entries for 8-4-1 “Applicability” and 8-4-6 “Gasoline dispensing facilities” to read as follows:
    § 52.770 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations Indiana citation Subject Indiana
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Notes
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 8: Volatile Organic Compound Rules Rule 4: Petroleum Sources 8-4-1 Applicability 3/5/2015 6/9/2016, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 8-4-6 Gasoline dispensing facilities 3/5/2015 6/9/2016, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-13605 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0136; FRL-9947-48-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ELT Minneapolis, LLC's (ELT) River Road Industrial Center located in Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. The revision, submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on February 24, 2016, updates information to reflect both administrative and equipment changes at the facility. The name of the facility has changed to BAE Technology Center (BAE). The revision will result in a significant decrease in SO2 emissions and will support the continued attainment and maintenance of the SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Twin Cities area.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 8, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by July 11, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0136 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)886-6031, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. Background Information II. How is the SIP being revised? III. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submission? IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Information

    In the SIP, the ELT River Road Industrial Center is subject to specific restrictions as part of Minnesota's SIP for SO2 in the Twin Cities Seven County SO2 area (Twin Cities area).1 The SIP for ELT's River Road Industrial Center was most recently approved by EPA on August 3, 2010, (75 FR 148).

    1 The area was officially designated attainment of the SO2 NAAQS on July 31, 1995 (60 FR 28339).

    Currently, four fossil fuel-fired boilers (#1, #2, #3, and #4) and four emergency generators (#5, #6, #7, and #8) are the primary emission units at the facility. Boilers #1, #2, and #3 use natural gas as their primary fuel with distillate oil as a backup fuel. Boiler #4 uses natural gas for fuel. All the emergency generators use low sulfur diesel fuel. In addition, the facility is subject to fuel usage limitations to restrict the total facility SO2 emissions.

    II. How is the SIP being revised?

    On February 24, 2016, the MPCA submitted a revision to Minnesota's SO2 SIP for the ELT River Road Industrial Center. The revision, most specifically, reflects changes as a result of new ownership.

    In 2015, as part of a purchase agreement, corporate ownership transferred from ELT to the Gramercy Property Trust Fridley Owner LLC (GPT Fridley). GPT Fridley changed the name of the facility from River Road Industrial Center to BAE.

    Under new ownership, BAE will be used for office and warehouse space. The emergency generators are used for stand-by power, for both life-safety, and communications in the event of electrical power is lost.

    The revised SIP identifies the boilers and emergency generators as both emission units (EU) and numbered equipment (EQUI). For example, boiler #4 (EU 004) is now identified as boiler #4 (EU 004/EQUI 1).

    Because part of the BAE facility had been demolished, boilers #1, #2, and #3, and emergency generators #7 and #8 were decommissioned and removed from the facility. Boiler #4, and emergency generators #5 and #6 were relocated within the facility.

    As part of the recent changes to the facility, boiler #4, which burns natural gas, has been modified to burn fuel oil as a backup fuel. Boiler #4 has a design capacity rated at 10.46 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). BAE has imposed limits on boiler #4 to restrict its fuels to natural gas and distillate fuel oil, with a sulfur content limit on the fuel oil of less than or equal to 0.05 percent by weight.

    Boilers #1, #2, and #3, which had design capacities rated at 69.8, 69.8, and 35.1 MMBtu/hr, respectively, have been replaced with a newer, more efficient boiler. The new boiler #5 has a design capacity rated at 19.674 MMBtu/hr. Boiler #5 is restricted to combusting natural gas and distillate fuel oil with a sulfur content limit on the fuel oil of less than or equal to 0.05 percent by weight as a backup fuel.

    III. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submission?

    The SO2 emission units operating at the BAE facility are boilers #4 and #5 and two emergency generators (#5 and #6). Boilers #1, #2, and #3, and emergency generators #7 and #8 have been removed from the facility.

    Boiler #4's potential SO2 emissions increase by 2.33 tons per year.2 Boiler #5's potential SO2 emissions using distillate fuel as a backup fuel are 4.37 tons per year.

    2 Section 3 of Minnesota's technical support document provides a full analysis of the emission calculations and the results of the emission changes.

    Overall, the emissions change from replacing the three older boilers (#1, #2, and #3) with a new, more efficient boiler #5, coupled with modifications to boiler #4 to burn fuel oil as a backup fuel, result in a significant decrease in SO2 emissions at the BAE facility. This action reduces the facility's total SO2 emissions from 39.76 tons per year to 7.25 tons per year. The net emissions change is a reduction of 32.51 tons of SO2 per year for the BAE facility.

    SO2 monitors near the BAE facility are currently measuring values less than 10 parts per billion (ppb), well below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb. EPA expects the air quality in the Twin Cities area to remain protected with the revisions being approved.

    The revised SO2 SIP for the BAE facility provides for reductions in allowable emissions, and therefore, strengthens the SO2 SIP for the Twin Cities area. Thus, EPA believes the BAE facility revision request is approvable.

    IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the request by Minnesota to revise the SO2 SIP as it applies to the BAE Technology Center. Specifically, EPA is approving into the SIP those portions of the BAE Technology Center facility Joint Title I/Title V document, permit No. 00300245-003, cited as “[Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2 SIP), Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51, Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y].” This replaces the current SO2 SIP for ELT Minneapolis, LLC.

    This revision will result in an overall reduction of SO2 emissions at the facility, which supports the continued attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in the Twin Cities area.

    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 8, 2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 11, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective August 8, 2016.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Minnesota regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the appropriate EPA office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the entry for “ELT Minneapolis, LLC” and adding in alphabetical order an entry for “BAE Technology Center” to read as follows:
    § 52.1220 Identification of plan.

    (d) * * *

    EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * BAE Technology Center 00300245-003 01/20/16 6/9/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] Only conditions cited as “[Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2 SIP), Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51, Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y]”. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-13604 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 0907271173-0629-03] RIN 0648-XE666 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Snowy Grouper AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial snowy grouper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects commercial landings for snowy grouper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) by June 14, 2016. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ on June 14, 2016, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season on January 1, 2017. This closure is necessary to protect the snowy grouper resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 14, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes snowy grouper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic is 125,760 lb (57,044 kg), gutted weight, 148,397 lb (67,312 kg), round weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2016, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(1)(ii).

    Under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS projects that commercial landings of South Atlantic snowy grouper, as estimated by the Science and Research Director, will reach the commercial ACL by June 14, 2016. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic snowy grouper is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 14, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2017.

    The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having snowy grouper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such snowy grouper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 14, 2016. During the commercial closure, harvest and possession of snowy grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits, as specified in § 622.187(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(1). Also during the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of snowy grouper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of snowy grouper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 14, 2016, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.

    For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for snowy grouper would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of snowy grouper and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect snowy grouper since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 6, 2016. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13667 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 111 Thursday, June 9, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7026; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-016-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking on the main frame on frame 11 left and right fittings. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2016-7026; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7026; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-016-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the aviation authority for Switzerland, has issued AD HB-2016-001, dated May 17, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to a report of Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) on the Main Frame on Frame (FR) 11 left fitting Part Number (P/N) 112.35.07.489 and right fitting P/N 112.35.07.490.

    Such a condition, if left uncorrected, could lead to potential loss of the horizontal stabilizer.

    In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires a one-time check to identify the material specification and inspect the affected areas of the airframe that are made of aluminum alloy AA2024-T351. Any structural parts of the aircraft structure found to be cracked must be reported to Pilatus prior to further flight

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7026.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. has issued PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013; and PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-014, both dated February 25, 2016. PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013, dated February 25, 2016, describes procedures for initial and repetitive inspection of the main frame FR11 left and right fittings for stress corrosion cracking; and PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-014, dated February 25, 2016, describes procedures for replacement of the main frame FR11 left and right fittings when necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service bulletin requires repetitive inspections by reference in a note, which the FAA cannot mandate, so the intent of the note has been incorporated into a required action for this proposed AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 19 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to check the material specification of the fittings and 11 work-hours per product to inspect the 2014-T351 fittings as required in order to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $17,765, or $935 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 19 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000 for a cost of $1,615 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Pilatus Aircraft Limited: Docket No. FAA-2016-7026; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-016-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 25, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Limited Model PC-7 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) 101 through 618, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking on the main frame on frame 11 left and right fittings, which can cause potential loss of the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct stress corrosion cracking on the frame 11 left and right fittings and replace if necessary.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:

    (1) Within the next 120 days after the effective date of this AD, check the material specification of the Frame (FR) 11 left fitting part number (P/N) 112.35.07.489 and the FR 11 right fitting P/N 112.35.07.490 following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3.B. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013, dated February 25, 2016.

    (2) If fittings made of aluminum alloy AA2124-T851 are found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 30 days after the inspection or within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report the inspection results following the reporting requirements in paragraph 3.D. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013, dated February 25, 2016.

    (3) If fittings made of aluminum alloy AA2024-T351 are found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect FR 11 left fitting, P/N 112.35.07.489 and the FR 11 right fitting, P/N 112.35.07.490, for cracks following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3.C. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013, dated February 25, 2016.

    (4) If cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, before further flight, replace the fittings following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3 of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-014, dated February 25, 2016.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) AD HB-2016-001, dated May 17, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7026. For service information related to this AD, contact PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 2, 2016. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13544 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0132] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is considering establishing new anchorage grounds in the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY. We are considering this action after receiving requests suggesting that anchorage grounds may improve navigation safety along an extended portion of the Hudson River, which currently has no anchorage grounds, allowing for a safer and more efficient flow of vessel traffic. The Coast Guard is seeking comments and information about the operational need for new anchorage grounds and what form possible regulations should take.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 7, 2016.

    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0132 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management Branch at Coast Guard First District, telephone 617-223-8351, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comments can help shape the outcome of this possible rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this ANPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted and if we publish rulemaking documents related to this ANPRM.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    Under title 33 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 109.05, U.S. Coast Guard District Commanders are delegated the authority to establish anchorage grounds by the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard establishes Anchorage Grounds under the authority in Section 7 of the act of March 4, 1915, as amended (38 Stat. 1053; 33 U.S.C. 471), and places these regulations in title 33 CFR part 110, subpart B. Hudson River Anchorage Ground regulations were last amended by rules published on March 31, 2016, January 15, 2015, and on July 20, 1999; these are 81 FR 18494, 80 FR 2011, and 64 FR 38828, respectively. The Coast Guard is now considering a proposed rulemaking to establish new anchorage grounds in the Hudson River.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this ANPRM are found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, and 2071, as well as 33 CFR 1.05-1 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorages. The Coast Guard is considering establishing new anchorage grounds.

    The Coast Guard received requests from the Maritime Association of the Port of NY/NJ Tug and Barge Committee, the Hudson River Port Pilot's Association, and the American Waterways Operators to consider establishing new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River. The purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit comments on potential proposed rulemakings to increase the available anchorage grounds on the Hudson River in areas which currently have no anchorages.

    D. Discussion of Possible Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is considering proposing to establish new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River. The anticipated users of the proposed anchorage grounds are commercial vessels and their attending tug, tow, or pushboats.

    The approximate depths of the proposed anchorage grounds range from 21 feet to 65 feet, which would accommodate a variety of vessel types and configurations, and would not interfere with the areas where vessels have historically transited the Hudson River. Preliminary details describing these contemplated anchorage grounds are provided below using coordinates based on North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Illustrations showing the locations of these anchorage grounds are available in the docket.

    Contemplated Kingston Flats South Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Kingston Flats South Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 279 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 22 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,300 feet for one vessel and of approximately 1,800 feet for two vessels. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-56.79′ N., 073-57.24′ W.; thence to 41-56.78′ N., 073-56.85′ W.; thence to 41-55.81′ N., 073-56.95′ W.; thence to 41-55.81′ N., 073-57.42′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Port Ewen Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Port Ewen Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 47 acres for one vessel with a draft of less than 30 feet for short term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-54.85′ N., 073-57.85′ W.; thence to 41-54.79′ N., 073-57.59′ W.; thence to 41-54.58′ N., 073-57.64′ W.; thence to 41-54.57′ N., 073-57.95′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Big Rock Point Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Big Rock Point Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 208 acres for up to four vessels with a draft of less than 35 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-54.25′ N., 073-58.04′ W.; thence to 41-54.31′ N., 073-57.76′ W.; thence to 41-53.79′ N., 073-57.55′ W.; thence to 41-53.40′ N., 073-57.25′ W.; thence to 41-53.21′ N., 073-57.45′ W.; thence to 41-53.68′ N., 073-57.80′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Roseton Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Roseton Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 305 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 40 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,700 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-33.46′ N., 073-58.71′ W.; thence to 41-33.41′ N., 073-58.27′ W.; thence to 41-32.92′ N., 073-58.77′ W.; thence to 41-32.41′ N., 073-59.21′ W.; thence to 41-32.65′ N., 073-59.47′ W.; thence to 41-33.12′ N., 073-59.11′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Milton Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Milton Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 74 acres for up to two vessels with a draft of less than 40 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-38.56′ N., 073-57.02′ W.; thence to 41-38.64′ N., 073-56.72′ W.; thence to 41-38.12′ N., 073-56.79′ W.; thence to 41-37.93′ N., 073-56.88′ W.; thence to 41-38.19′ N., 073-57.05′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Marlboro Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Marlboro Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 154 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 35 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,800 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-36.68′ N., 073-57.12′ W.; thence to 41-38.82′ N., 073-57.76′ W.; thence to 41-35.88′ N., 073-57.21′ W.; thence to 41-35.87′ N., 073-56.92′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Newburgh Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Newburgh Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 445 acres for up to five vessels with a draft of less than 32 feet toward the northern end and less than 22 feet toward the southern end for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,800 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-29.75′ N., 073-59.98′ W.; thence to 41-29.96′ N., 073-59.48′ W.; thence to 41-28.38′ N., 073-59.94′ W.; thence to 41-28.29′ N., 074-00.20′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Tompkins Cove Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Tomkins Cove Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 98 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 40 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-15.91′ N., 073-58.51′ W.; thence to 41-15.91′ N., 073-58.21′ W.; thence to 41-15.27′ N., 073-58.38′ W.; thence to 41-15.28′ N., 073-58.65′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Montrose Point Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Montrose Point Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 127 acres for up to three vessels with a draft of less than 26 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,400 feet for each vessel. The contemplated ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-14.02′ N., 073-57.45′ W.; thence to 41-14.09′ N., 073-57.15′ W.; thence to 41-31.10′ N., 073-57.00′ W.; thence to 41-13.18′ N., 073-56.60′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Contemplated Yonkers Extension Anchorage Ground

    We are considering proposing that a Yonkers Extension Anchorage Ground would cover approximately 715 acres for up to 16 vessels with a draft of less than 35 feet for long term usage. It would provide a vessel swing radius of approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. The contemplated anchorage ground would encompass waters within lines connecting the following points: 41-00.60′ N., 073-53.61′ W.; thence to 41-00.60′ N., 073-53.31′ W.; thence to 40-58.05′ N., 073-53.96′ W.; thence to 40-56.96′ N., 073-54.39′ W.; thence to 40-57.02′ N., 073-54.71′ W.; thence to 40-58.11′ N., 073-54.25′ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    E. Information Requested

    Public participation is requested to assist in determining the best way forward with respect to establishing new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River between Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY. To aid us in developing a possible proposed rule, we seek any comments, whether positive or negative, including but not limited to the impacts anchorage grounds may have on navigation safety and current vessel traffic in this area, the proposed number and size of vessels anchoring in each proposed anchorage ground, and the authorized duration for each vessel in each proposed anchorage ground. We are also seeking comments on any additional locations where anchorage grounds may be helpful on the Hudson River or any recommended alterations to the specific locations considered in this notice. Please submit any comments or concerns you may have in accordance with the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section above.

    L.L. Fagan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13701 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0397: FRL-9947-53-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Stationary Source Permitting Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, and incorporate by reference, revisions to the Idaho State Implementation Plan submitted on May 21, 2015. In the submission, Idaho revised stationary source permitting rules, including the addition of facility-wide emission limits and nonmetallic mineral processing plant regulations. Idaho also added an alternative method for stationary sources to comply with sulfur content of fuels limits, and updated provisions to account for changes to federal air quality regulations. The EPA proposes to approve the submitted revisions as consistent with the Clean Air Act and the EPA's implementing regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0397, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from http://www.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 the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. State Submission III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant Rules C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine Particulate Matter E. Incorporation by Reference Updates F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain Federal Rules IV. Proposed Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the process by which a state submits air quality protection requirements to the EPA for approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is the state's plan to implement, maintain and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA. Idaho regularly updates the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01) to reflect changes to the NAAQS and to improve implementation, maintenance and enforcement of those standards. We note that Idaho incorporates by reference portions of certain federal regulations directly into the SIP. The state generally submits an annual update to the EPA to keep rules consistent with federal requirements.

    II. State Submission

    On May 21, 2015, Idaho submitted revisions to state air quality rules at IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval into the SIP. Idaho adopted these rule changes on November 19 and November 21, 2014. The state provided notice and an opportunity for public comment and hearing on the changes. Notices were published in the Idaho Administrative Bulletin and public hearings were held on September 9 and October 7, 2014. We have evaluated Idaho's submission and propose to find the state has met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110 of the CAA.

    III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules

    In the submission, Idaho revised the rules that permit construction and operation of stationary sources. Idaho's changes give certain minor sources the option to apply for facility-wide emission limitations. These limitations, or caps, when incorporated into a minor source permit to construct or Tier II operating permit, are intended to allow minor sources to operate more flexibly, without having to request permit modifications for certain process changes.

    For example, semiconductor manufacturing facilities make many equipment and process changes as they develop new products and technologies. However, many equipment and process changes do not warrant extensive review as a permit modification. The intent of the facility-wide emissions cap is to set a cap on emissions from a facility, while allowing process changes under certain conditions that may increase emissions. As long as facility emissions stay below the cap and the process changes do not trigger new requirements, the source may be permitted to construct and operate.

    The new Idaho rules for limiting emissions from minor sources are called the facility-wide emissions cap rules, or “FEC” rules, codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 181. These rules lay out the requirements a minor source must meet to request a FEC limit, and the method for determining the limit. A FEC limit is expressed as tons per year, on a 12-month rolling basis, and may be applied to any criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant. The FEC rules do not provide for issuance of a stand-alone permit. Rather, owners or operators of eligible facilities may request a FEC limit be incorporated into a new or existing permit to construct or Tier II operating permit. As stated above, only minor sources are eligible. These include sources that request an emission limit to avoid major source permitting, otherwise known as synthetic minor sources.

    In our review, we have evaluated the addition of the FEC option to determine if the revised minor source permit to construct and Tier II operating permit programs continue to comply with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations. We propose to find that they do, and that the FEC rules are approvable for the reasons stated below.

    First, the FEC rules contain adequate provisions to prevent sources operating under a FEC limit from causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires “. . . regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source . . . as necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved.” The EPA's implementing regulations for minor sources, set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164, require a state to have procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it will result in a violation of a pollution control strategy, or if it will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS.

    The FEC rules ensure maintenance of the NAAQS by limiting the option to obtain a FEC limit to minor sources and requiring the applicant to demonstrate that operating under the FEC limit will not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. As stated in IDAPA 58.01.01.176.02.a, major sources, or sources undergoing a major modification, cannot obtain a FEC limit. Moreover, by its terms, the FEC limit is set below major source thresholds. The FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.178.03 through .04 also require recordkeeping and reporting, including an annual report, demonstrating compliance with the FEC limit(s) and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    Second, the addition of the FEC option does not alleviate any of the application requirements for either the minor source permit to construct program or the Tier II operating permit program. The EPA has already approved Idaho's application procedures for both programs. The EPA approved revisions to Idaho's minor source permit to construct application procedures most recently on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217).1 Similarly, the EPA approved revisions to Idaho's Tier II operating permit program most recently on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719).2

    1 EPA did not approve section .03 of IDAPA 58.01.01.201 because it is related to toxic air pollutants and not the criteria pollutants or other requirements of CAA section 110 (January 16, 2003; 68 FR 2217, at page 2221).

    2 The EPA did not approve section .01.a and section .04 of IDAPA 58.01.01.401, related to alternative emission limits and compliance date extensions (November 26, 2010; 75 FR 72719, at page 72723).

    In sum, we are proposing to approve and incorporate by reference the FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 181 into the Idaho SIP, except as the rules relate to hazardous air pollutants. Hazardous air pollutants are regulated under CAA section 112, and are not appropriate for approval into the SIP. The SIP includes provisions related to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and other specific requirements of CAA section 110. We are also proposing to approve and incorporate by reference the revisions to IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to Construct Required and IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II Operating Permit to appropriately cross-reference the FEC rules. However, consistent with our previous action on November 26, 2010, we are not approving section .01.a and section .04 of IDAPA 58.01.01.401 because the provisions allow for unbounded director's discretion (75 FR 72719).

    B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant Rules

    In the submission, Idaho made changes to streamline the permit process for rock crushers, asphalt plants, and other portable equipment used to process nonmetallic minerals. Instead of continuing to require that a regulated rock crusher obtain a permit to construct before starting operation, Idaho created a permit by rule that establishes controls and other operating parameters that apply to an eligible source upon registration with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

    These requirements are codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 Rules for the Control of Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants. Sources that register and operate in compliance with the rules are considered to have a “permit by rule.” Only minor sources that operate for less than twelve consecutive months at a single location are eligible for the permit by rule. Sources covered by the Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO are not eligible, nor are new and modified major sources. By extension, rock crushers that are part of a new major source or proposed major modification are not eligible for the permit by rule.

    The requirements for eligible nonmetallic mineral processing plants specify that obtaining a permit by rule does not relieve the owner or operator of an eligible source from the responsibility of complying with other federal, state and local applicable laws, regulations, and requirements. The rules make clear that sources subject to the NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, or the NSPS for Portland Cement Plants or Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, must continue to comply with the NSPS limits and controls, as applicable. Provisions in the rules related to NSPS and title V source operating permits (IDAPA 58.01.01.792 and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04) are generally not appropriate for SIP approval because they are not intended to implement the requirements of CAA section 110. Moreover, the NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, applies to affected facilities by its terms regardless of Idaho's rule. See 40 CFR 60.670.

    The nonmetallic mineral processing plant rules set out the registration process and operating parameters for rock crushers and other eligible sources, including limits on the hours of operation, fuel consumptions rates, best management practices, and general controls designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. The registration procedures for the permit by rule are contained in IDAPA 58.01.01.795 through 799. Owners and operators may choose to operate an eligible plant under the permit by rule by registering the new or modified processing plant fifteen days prior to commencing operation or modification. As part of the registration, the owner or operator must supply information, such as manufacturer, model, and throughput capacity, on the rock crushers, screen decks, and electric generators proposed to be part of the processing plant.

    Owners and operators who register their nonmetallic mineral processing plants are deemed to have a permit by rule if they operate the plants in accordance with the applicable substantive requirements. In general, the rules prohibit emissions that would be injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or that would interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property. In addition, owners and operators of eligible sources must take all reasonable precautions to prevent the generation of fugitive dust, in addition to meeting specific opacity standards spelled out for categories of activities at areas of operation.

    Specific requirements sources must meet include fuel restrictions, limits on operating hours, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for electrical generators at a source. For example, electrical generators must run on American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Grade 1 or 2 fuel oil and must also meet specific sulfur content in fuel restrictions. Sources also must restrict visible emissions from various activities to 20% opacity or less, aggregating more than three minutes in any sixty minute period. NSPS-regulated processing plants are held to stricter opacity limits.

    In addition to meeting opacity limits, sources must use best management practices to limit fugitive dust from the operation, including controls on paved public roads, unpaved haul roads, transfer points, screening operations, stacks and vents, crushers and grinding mills, and stockpiles. These best management practices are triggered during the course of operations, for instance when observed visible emissions from vehicle traffic approaches the opacity limit, or when citizen complaints come in that have merit. Sources must maintain a daily record of observing the operation, including when events trigger required control strategies and the corrective actions taken.

    Idaho also amended IDAPA 58.01.01.011 to include new terms supporting the nonmetallic mineral processing plant rules. The new definitions include: “Best Management Practice,” “Control Strategy Trigger,” “Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant,” “NSPS Regulated Facility or Plant,” “Permit by Rule,” “Progressive Control Strategy,” and “Site of Operations.”

    The EPA proposes to determine that the permit by rule provisions for rock crushers and other nonmetallic mineral processing plants are consistent with the types of permit terms and conditions that are generally used when issuing source-specific permits to sources in this category, and may in fact be more prescriptive. We also propose to conclude that the addition of the nonmetallic mineral processing rules are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164. We are therefore proposing to approve IDAPA 58.01.01.011 and IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 into the Idaho SIP, except IDAPA 58.01.01.792, and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04 because they are not related to the requirements of CAA section 110 and are inappropriate for SIP approval.

    C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision

    The Idaho sulfur content of fuels provision regulates the sulfur dioxide emissions from stationary sources by setting limits on the sulfur content of residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and coal that is sold, distributed, used, or made available in Idaho. The provision is located in IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels. In the submission, Idaho revised the rule provision to allow a stationary source—when applying for a permit to construct or operate—to request an alternative method to comply with sulfur in fuel limits. The revision specifies that the alternative may only be allowed if the applicant demonstrates that sulfur dioxide emissions would be equal to or less than emissions would be under the prescribed sulfur content of fuel limits. In other words, to get approval to use a fuel with higher sulfur content, a stationary source must show that, by installing a control device, the source can reduce hourly controlled emissions to less than the maximum hourly emissions from combusting complying fuels.

    If a demonstration meets the rule requirements, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality may approve the alternative compliance method into a stationary source permit to construct or operating permit. Any permit issued must contain the appropriate source monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements, for ensuring compliance, in accordance with Idaho's federally-approved permit to construct and operating permit programs.

    We note that this rule revision alone does not allow the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to relax any existing permit limits or conditions without also ensuring compliance with existing permit rules. In addition, any modification required for a stationary source to combust higher sulfur fuels, even without increasing allowable emissions, may be subject to preconstruction permitting rules.

    Based on the information above, we conclude that the rule change is designed to protect the NAAQS, and we propose to approve and incorporate by reference the revision to IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels.

    D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine Particulate Matter

    In the submission, Idaho revised IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General Definitions to clarify that the definition of “Criteria Air Pollutant” includes fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and added specific definitions for PM2.5 and PM2.5 emissions. Idaho also updated the Baselines for Prevention of Significant Deterioration rule section to add major and minor source baseline dates for PM2.5. We propose to approve these revisions as consistent with the CAA, the EPA's fine particulate matter standards set forth at 40 CFR 50.18, and major and minor source baseline dates and area requirements detailed at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14) and (15). We note that, consistent with our previous action on March 3, 2014, we are not approving the terms defined in sections .49, .50, .51, .66, .67, .68.b, .114, and .116 because these terms relate to toxic air pollutants, not the criteria pollutants and the requirements of CAA section 110 (79 FR 11711).

    E. Incorporation by Reference Updates

    Idaho revised section .03 of IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations by Reference by updating the citation dates that incorporate federal provisions effective as of that date. Paragraph .a incorporates by reference the Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51, with the exception of certain visibility-related provisions, effective July 1, 2014. We note that Idaho did not submit updates to the incorporation of federal provisions relied on as part of the State's nonattainment area major stationary source preconstruction permitting program.

    Paragraphs .b, .d, and .e of the same section incorporate the following provisions effective July 1, 2014: .b National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 50; .d Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR part 53; and .e Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58. We propose to find that paragraphs .b, .d, and .e are consistent with CAA requirements. Idaho did not submit paragraphs .f through .n for approval because the provisions are not related to CAA section 110 and the criteria pollutants, and are inappropriate for SIP approval.

    Paragraph .c incorporates the Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52 subparts A and N, and appendices D and E. This includes the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting rules at 40 CFR 52.21, effective July 1, 2014. We propose to find that paragraph .c is consistent with CAA requirements. We note that specific federal PSD permitting rules have been vacated and remanded by the courts to the EPA. Idaho has responded by submitting rule changes to align the Idaho SIP with the court decisions. Please see Section III. F. below.

    F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain Federal Rules 1. PM2.5 PSD Provisions

    As discussed above, Idaho incorporates by reference federal PSD permitting requirements. The current Idaho SIP incorporates these rules, codified at 40 CFR 52.21, as of July 1, 2012, except revisions to 40 CFR 52.21(i) (relating to the significant monitoring concentration (SMC)) and 40 CFR 52.21(k) (relating to the significant impact level (SIL)) that added a SMC and SIL for PM2.5 as part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule (October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864). We partially disapproved Idaho's previous submittal incorporating these provisions because they were vacated by a court after Idaho had already adopted and submitted them to the EPA (April 7, 2015, 80 FR 18526).

    On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 3 issued, with respect to the SMC, a judgment that, among other things, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC to the federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). In its decision, the Court held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a state's PSD program, where a state PSD program contains such a provision and allows issuance of new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of the vacated SMC would be inconsistent with the Court's opinion and the requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.

    3 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

    At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded the portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The EPA requested this vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5 because the wording of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not vacated and remains in effect. We also note that the Court's decision does not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule.

    On December 9, 2013, the EPA amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from the federal PSD regulations (78 FR 73698). In response, Idaho updated the incorporation by reference of federal PSD regulations to July 1, 2014, capturing the EPA's removal of the vacated provisions. Idaho also revised the ambient air quality analysis requirements for major sources seeking PSD permits (IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Permit to Construct, at section .01) to clarify the appropriate use of a SIL and reference the federal PSD regulation listing SILs. We propose to find that these revisions are consistent with the Court's opinion and current EPA PSD regulations.

    2. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions From Biogenic Sources

    In 2011, the EPA revised the definition of “subject to regulation” at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). The intent was to defer for three years (until July 21, 2014) PSD permitting for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources (Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs; Final Rule (July 20, 2011, 76 FR 43490) (Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule)). Idaho's SIP incorporates by reference federal PSD permitting rules and includes this deferral provision.

    On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 4 vacated the Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule. The deferral expired on July 21, 2014, and by its terms is no longer in effect.

    4 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

    3. PSD Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limits on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

    5 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).

    In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision, pending further judicial action before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply the EPA regulations that would require SIPs to include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).

    The EPA recently revised federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court decision (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183). In addition, we anticipate that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. We do not expect that all states have revised their existing PSD program regulations yet, however, we are evaluating submitted PSD program revision to ensure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs, consistent with the Court's decision.

    Idaho's current SIP contains the GHG permitting requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21, as amended in the Tailoring Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting program in Idaho, previously approved into the SIP, continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limits on GHG emissions, based on the application of BACT, when sources emit or increase GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (measured as carbon dioxide equivalent).

    Although the approved Idaho PSD permitting program may also currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not prevent the EPA from approving this SIP submission. Idaho's submission does not add any GHG permitting requirements that are inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision. While Idaho's submission incorporates all of 40 CFR 52.21 for completeness, the submission reincorporates PSD requirements for GHGs already in the Idaho SIP.

    IV. Proposed Action

    We propose to approve, and incorporate by reference into the Idaho SIP, changes to the following provisions submitted on May 21, 2015:

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General Definitions, except .49, .50, .51, .66, .67, .68.b, .114, and .116 (State effective 4/11/2014);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.011 Definitions for the Purposes of Sections 790 through 799 (State effective 3/15/2002);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations by Reference, except .03.f through .n, and with respect to .a, the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 51.165 (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.157 Test Methods and Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.175 Procedures and Requirements for Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.176 Facility Emissions Cap, except for provisions relating to hazardous air pollutants (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.177 Application Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.178 Standard Contents of Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.179 Procedures for Issuing Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.180 Revisions to Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.181 Notice and Record-Keeping of Estimates of Ambient Concentrations (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to Construct Required (State effective 4/11/2006);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Application Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II Operating Permit, except .01.a and .04, (State effective 4/11/2006);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.579 Baselines for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.790 Rules for the Control of Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants (State effective 3/15/2002);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.791 General Control Requirements, (State effective 3/15/2002);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.793 Emissions Standards for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants not Subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOO (State effective 3/15/2002);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.794 Permit Requirements, except .04 (State effective 4/11/2015);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.795 Permit by Rule Requirements (State effective 3/15/2002);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.796 Applicability (State effective 3/15/2002);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.797 Registration for Permit by Rule (State effective 3/15/2002);

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.798 Electrical Generators (State effective 3/15/2002); and

    • IDAPA 58.01.01.799 Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plan Fugitive Dust Best Management Practice (State effective 3/15/2002).

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Proposed Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13693 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0136; FRL-9947-49-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ELT Minneapolis, LLC's River Road Industrial Center located in Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. The revision, submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on February 24, 2016, updates information updates information to reflect both administrative and equipment changes at the facility. The name of the facility has changed to BAE Technology Center. The revision will result in a significant decrease in SO2 emissions and will support the continued attainment and maintenance of the SO2 national ambient air quality standard in the Twin Cities area.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0136 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving Minnesota's SO2 SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If EPA does not receive adverse comments in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and will address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, and if that provision can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13603 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 405, 412, 413, and 485 [CMS-1655-CN] RIN 0938-AS77 Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Graduate Medical Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; and Technical Changes Relating to Costs to Organizations and Medicare Cost Reports; Correction AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects technical and typographical errors in the proposed rule that appeared in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016 titled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Graduate Medical Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; and Technical Changes Relating to Costs to Organizations and Medicare Cost Reports.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Padgett, (410) 786-2811.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2016-09120 of April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24946), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document.

    II. Summary of Errors A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble

    On pages 24958, 24959, and 25255 we made an inadvertent technical and typographical errors in referencing several quality measure titles.

    On page 25121, we erroneously referenced the incorrect date for the end of the FY 2019 Hospital-acquired condition (HAC) Reduction Program performance period.

    On page 25173, we made an error in referencing the Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting Program (LTCH QRP).

    On page 25223, we made an error in specifying the units for the dollar amount in reference to expenditures. We also inadvertently omitted full reference to “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Prevention Quality Indicators Overview. 2008” in the footnote.

    On page 25247, we erroneously referenced incorrect year regarding the Spring version of the Clinical Quality Measure (CQM) electronic specifications.

    B. Summary of Errors in the Addendum

    On page 25307, in table titled “Estimated Proportion of Hospitals in the Worst-Performing Quartile (75th Percentile) of the Total HAC Score for the FY 2017 HAC Reduction Program”, we made technical errors in the entries for the “By Teaching Status” hospital characteristic.

    On page 25319, we made an inadvertent technical and typographical errors in referencing several quality measure titles.

    On pages 25322, we made an error in referencing the Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting Program (LTCH QRP).

    IV. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 2016-09120 of April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24946), we are making the following corrections:

    A. Corrections of Errors in the Preamble

    1. On page 24958, first column, last paragraph, line 11, the phrase “PAC LTCH QRP.” is corrected to read “LTCH QRP.”.

    2. On page 24959, third column, last paragraph, line 8, the phrase “Issues-PAC” is corrected to read “Issues-PAC LTCH QRP”.

    3. On page 25121, third column, first full paragraph, line 18, the phrase “September 30” is corrected to read “June 30”.

    4. On page 25173, third column, fifth bulleted paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “(LTCH QRP) (also referred to as the LTCHQR Program);” is corrected to read as “(LTCH QRP);”.

    5. On page 25223:

    a. Second column, first full paragraph, line 29, the figure “$4.3B” is corrected as “$4.3 billion”.

    b. Third column, third footnote (footnote 232), line 1, the phrase “National Quality Forum:” is corrected to read “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:”.

    6. On page 25247, first column, sixth paragraph, line 19, the phrase “Spring 2017” is corrected to read “Spring 2016”.

    7. On page 25255, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 7 through 14, the sentence “We refer readers to section VIII.C.9.d. of the preamble of this this proposed rule for further details on the proposed expansion of data collection for this measures (NQF #0680), including data collection timeframes and associated submission deadlines.” is corrected to read “We refer readers to section VIII.C.9.d. of the preamble of this proposed rule for further details on the proposed expansion of data collection for this measure, Percent of Residents or Patients Who Were Assessed and Appropriately Given the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (Short Stay) (NQF #0680), including data collection timeframes and associated submission deadlines.”.

    B. Corrections of Errors in the Addendum

    1. On page 25307, in the table titled “ESTIMATED PROPORTION OF HOSPITAL IN THE WORST-PERFORMING QUARTILE (75TH PERCENTILE) OF THE TOTAL HAC SCORE FOR THE FY 2017 HAC REDUCTION PROGRAM,” the entries for the hospital characteristic “By Teaching Status” are corrected to read as follows:

    Hospital characteristic Number of hospitals a Number of hospitals in the worst-
  • performing quartile b
  • Percent of hospitals in the worst-
  • performing quartile c
  • By Teaching Status: f Non-teaching 2,189 398 18.2 Fewer than 100 residents 777 230 29.6 100 or more residents 245 136 55.5

    2. On page 25319, first column, first partial paragraph, line 13, the phrase “this measures (NQF #0680),” is corrected to read “this measure, Percent of Residents or Patients Who Were Assessed and Appropriately Given the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (Short Stay) (NQF #0680),”.

    3. On 25322, second column, second full paragraph, line 12, the phrase “LTCHQR Program” is corrected to read “LTCH QRP”.

    Dated: June 6, 2016. Madhura Valverde, Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13685 Filed 6-6-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    81 111 Thursday, June 9, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Lincoln National Forest; New Mexico; Integrated Non-Native Invasive Plant Management AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Lincoln National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement to document and disclose projected effects of its management strategy for treating non-native invasive plants (NNIP) across the Forest. This strategy utilizes several management tools, including registered herbicides, biological treatments (biological controls and controlled grazing), and manual and/or mechanical methods. The strategy is adaptive, allowing for the treatment of new NNIP infestations and use of new treatment options, including new herbicides.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by July 11, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected February 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected August 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to the Aurora Roemmich, Integrated Non-Native Invasive Plant Management Project, Lincoln National Forest, 3462 La Palomas Road, Alamogordo, NM 88310. Comments may also be sent via email to http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=31150, or via facsimile to (575) 434-7218. For email comments, go to the right-hand side “Get Connected”, click “Comment on Project” to submit comments on this project.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennie O'Connor Card, Interdisciplinary Team Leader at (406) 522-2537 or by email at [email protected] or Aurora Roemmich, Forest Botanist, Lincoln National Forest at (575) 434-7266 or [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action

    Executive Order 13112, Forest Service Manual 2900, and Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), provide direction related to the management of invasive species. Executive Order 13112 directs Federal agencies to prevent and control invasive species and to minimize their economic, ecological, and human health impacts. The order provides for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded by non-native invasive species.

    A non-native invasive plant species is defined as any terrestrial or aquatic plant species occurring outside its natural range that is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. If a native plant species is deemed a noxious weed by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture or another agency because it is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health, then the species would also be considered for treatment under this analysis and decision.

    The overall purpose of this project is to implement a management strategy that uses an integrated selection of techniques designed to prevent the introduction of and control the spread of non-native invasive plants (NNIP). A second purpose is to ensure that the strategy is adaptive, allowing for the treatment of new NNIP infestations and use of new treatment options, including new herbicides, because future NNIP management needs may be different. As such, there are underlying needs to:

    1. Utilize the most effective and economical strategies to treat NNIP while protecting valued resources to the greatest practical extent; and,

    2. Adapt management techniques to accommodate new NNIP infestations and treatment options, including new herbicides, within the scope of this analysis and resulting decision.

    Proposed Action

    The proposed action presents a forest-wide integrated weed management (IWM) strategy, for the prevention, eradication, suppression, and reduction of existing and future non-native invasive plant infestations. The IWM strategy is based on ecological factors and includes consideration of site conditions, other resource values, resource uses, NNIP characteristics, and potential effectiveness of control measures for specific circumstances.

    The proposed action includes a wide range of treatment methods including options to use a combination of methods on the same site. It also was developed to minimize the risk of adverse impacts through resource protection measures. These resource protection measures are designed to minimize, avoid or mitigate adverse effects which could occur as a result of implementing proposed NNIP treatments on the Forest. The resource protection measures are based on Forest Plan direction and policy, best available science, and site-specific evaluations.

    Selection of the most appropriate treatment practice, or combination of treatments, depends on numerous factors, including the size of the infestation, risk of NNIP expansion, species biology, environmental setting, potential impacts to other resources, and management objectives. Treatment practices available for use would include manual, mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments. Chemical treatments include hand/selective and broadcast herbicide applications (including aerial application). Aerial herbicide application by helicopter could be used in selected locations of the Forest including designated wilderness areas. Aerial application provides a means to effectively treat infestations in isolated areas rapidly and efficiently, dramatically reducing the threat of further establishment or expansion.

    The project also includes an adaptive management strategy to determine treatment of identified and future NNIP infestations. This adaptive management strategy consists of two principle components: The ability to effectively treat new infestations as they are detected; and, the ability to incorporate new technology as it becomes available.

    Forest Plan Amendment

    This project would require an amendment to the Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The project proposes use of herbicides in places and under conditions that were not foreseen when the existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines were developed in 1986. To meet the purpose and need for this project, it may be necessary to apply herbicide treatments to areas infested with non-native invasive plant species.

    This amendment would change forestwide standards and guidelines applicable to all areas for wildlife (pages 31-34), grazing management (page 35 and replacement page 35B), soil and water (pages 40-41), fire and protection (replacement page 55), all species (pages 205-206), Mexican spotted owl (replacement page 206A), peregrine falcon (page 207), and northern goshawk (replacement page 208A and 208E). The amendment also would change standards and guidelines related to protection in management area 1C Capitan Mountains Wilderness (replacement page 62), management area 1F White Mountain Wilderness (replacement page 70), management area 1H RNA William G. Telfer Research Natural Area (page 77), and management area 3A RNA Upper McKittrick RNA (page 115). If adopted, this would be the eigthtennth amendment to the Forest Plan since its inception in 1986.

    Responsible Official

    The Responsible Official for this project is the Lincoln National Forest, Forest Supervisor.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Responsible Official will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action. The Responsible Official also will decide whether or not to amend the Forest Plan.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    This proposed project is an activity implementing a land management plan and is subject to the objection process described in 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. As such, individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to file a predecisional objection must meet the information requirements in 36 CFR 218.25(a)(3). Names and contact information submitted with comments will become part of the public record and may be released under the Freedom of Information Act. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Barry L. Imler, Acting Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13669 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission Business Meeting.

    DATES:

    Friday, June 17, 2016, at 12:30 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Place: National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 11th Floor, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20245 (Entrance on F Street NW.).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerson Gomez, Media Advisor at telephone: (202) 376-8371 or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This business meeting is open to the public. If you would like to listen to the business meeting, please contact the above for the call-in information. Persons with hearing impairments, please contact the above for how to access the Federal Relay Service for the meeting.

    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at [email protected] at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Meeting Agenda I. Business Meeting A. Approval of Agenda B. Program Planning • Discussion of proposed Concept Papers for 2017 Statutory Enforcement Report • Discussion and vote on Commission Letter regarding guidance issued by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights on transgender students and their protections under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 C. State Advisory Committees • Status of State Advisory Committees by the Chief of the Regional Programs Unit • Vote on Administrative Instruction (5-9) governing the appointments of State Advisory Committee members • Appointment of members to Advisory Committees • Nevada • Delaware • Vermont • New York • Connecticut • Minnesota • Presentation by the Chair of the Illinois Advisory Committee on Environmental Justice a. Management and Operations • Staff Director's Report b. Status of USCCR Web site Transition D. Other II. Adjourn Meeting Dated: June 7, 2016. David Mussatt, Regional Programs Unit Chief, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13802 Filed 6-7-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program; Form ED-840P Petition by a Firm for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms

    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: Economic Development Administration (EDA).

    Title: Form ED-840P Petition by a Firm for Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    OMB Control Number: 0610-0091.

    Form Number(s): ED-840P.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Number of Respondents: 800 (500 petitions for certification and 300 adjustment proposals).

    Average Hours per Response: 128.2 hours (8.2 for petitions for certification and 120 for adjustment proposals).

    Burden Hours: 40,100 (4,100 for petitions for certification and 36,000 for adjustment proposals).

    Needs and Uses: The information contained in Form ED-840P is necessary for EDA to evaluate whether proposed projects satisfy eligibility and programmatic requirements contained in chapters 3 and 5 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (U.S.C. 2341 et seq.) and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-40) which reauthorized the program.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on March 17, 2016.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA [email protected] or fax to (202) 975-5806.

    Dated: June 6, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13666 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Delivery Verification Procedure for Imports AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security.

    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 August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Foreign governments, on occasions, require U.S. importers of strategic commodities to furnish their foreign supplier with a U.S. Delivery Verification Certificate validating that the commodities shipped to the U.S. were in fact received. This procedure increases the effectiveness of controls on the international trade of strategic commodities.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0016.

    Form Number(s): BIS-647P.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11.4 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $342.00

    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: June 3, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13607 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; International Import Certificate AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of 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 August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The United States and several other countries have increased the effectiveness of their respective controls over international trade in strategic commodities by means of an Import Certificate procedure. For the U.S. importer, this procedure provides that, where required by the exporting country, the importer submits an international import certificate to the U.S. Government to certify that he/she will import commodities into the United States and will not reexport such commodities, except in accordance with the export control regulations of the United States. The U.S. Government, in turn, certifies that such representations have been made.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0017.

    Form Number(s): BIS-645P.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 67.2.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,016.

    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: June 3, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13608 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-921; C-570-931; C-570-936; C-570-938; C-570-940; C-570-942; C-570-944; C-570-946; C-570-955; C-570-957; C-570-959; C-570-966; C-570-968; C-570-978; C-570-980] Implementation of Determinations Pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On April 1, 2016 and May 26, 2016, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) directed the Department of Commerce (the Department) to implement its determinations under section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), regarding 15 countervailing duty (CVD) investigations, which render them not inconsistent with the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement findings in United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China, WT/DS437 (December 18, 2014) (DS437). See Attachment for a listing of the 15 CVD investigations at issue in DS437. The Department issued its final determinations in these section 129 proceedings on March 31, 2016, April 26, 2016, and May 19, 2016. The Department is now implementing these final determinations.

    DATES:

    The effective date for the determination covering the Group One Investigations and the Wire Strand investigation with respect to the public body and input specificity analyses is April 1, 2016, and the effective date for the determinations covering the Group Two Investigations and Wire Strand with respect to the land specificity analysis is May 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric B. Greynolds or Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6071 or (202) 482-4793, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 27, 2015, the Department informed interested parties that it was initiating proceedings under section 129 of the URAA to implement the recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in DS437.1 Given the number of CVD investigations and complexity of the issues involved in this dispute, the Department addressed each of the issues and conclusions of the panel and Appellate Body in DS437 through separate preliminary determination memoranda. Specifically, the Department issued preliminary determinations regarding: (1) Export Restraints; 2 (2) Land; 3 (3) Public Bodies and Input Specificity; 4 and (4) Benefit (Market Distortion).5

    1See Notice of Commencement of Compliance Proceedings Pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 80 FR 23254 (April 27, 2015).

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceeding: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO/DS437): Preliminary Determination Regarding Export Restraints,” (February 23, 2016).

    3See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceeding: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO/DS437): Preliminary Determination Regarding Land Specificity,” (February 24, 2016).

    4See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Preliminary Determination of Public Bodies and Input Specificity,” (February 25, 2016); see also Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Input Specificity: Preliminary Analysis of the Diversification of Economic Activities and Length of Time,” (December 31, 2015).

    5See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Benefit (Market Distortion) Memorandum,” (March 7, 2016); see also Memorandum to Brendan Quinn, Acting Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, “Supporting Memorandum to Preliminary Benefit (Market Distortion) Memorandum,” (March 7, 2016).

    The Department invited interested parties to comment on each of the section 129 preliminary determinations.6 After receiving comments and rebuttal comments from the interested parties, the Department issued final determinations on March 31, 2016,7 April 26, 2016,8 and May 19, 2016.9

    6See Department Memorandum to the File, “Section 129 Proceedings: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO/DS437): Schedule for rebuttal factual information, written argument, and a hearing,” (March 11, 2016).

    7See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceedings: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO DS437): Final Determination of Public Bodies and Input Specificity,” (March 31, 2016); Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceedings: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO DS437): No Comment Final Determinations,” (March 31, 2016); and Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceedings: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO DS437): Final Determination for Countervailing Duty Investigation on Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China,” (March 31, 2016).

    8See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceedings: United States—Countervailing Duty (CVD) Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO DS437): Final Determination on the Initiation of Allegations of Export Restraints in Magnesia Bricks,” (April 26, 2016) (Final Determination for Export Restraints); see also Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceedings: United States—Countervailing Duty (CVD) Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO DS437): Final Determination for Certain Seamless Carbon Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China (Seamless Pipe from the PRC),” (April 26, 2016) (Final Determination for Seamless Pipe).

    9See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceedings: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO DS437): Final Determination for Pressure Pipe, Line Pipe, OCTG, Wire Strand, and Solar Panels,” (May 19, 2016) (Final Determination for Pressure Pipe, Line Pipe, OCTG, Wire Strand, and Solar Panels).

    On April 1, 2016, USTR notified the Department that, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to the March 31, 2016, determinations, had been completed and USTR directed the Department to implement those determinations in accordance with section 129(b)(4) of the URAA. As explained below, those determinations applied to Lawn Groomers, Kitchen Shelving, Steel Cylinders, Print Graphics, Aluminum Extrusions, Thermal Paper, and Citric Acid (“Group One Investigations”), as well as Wire Strand with respect to the Department's public body and input specificity analyses.

    On May 26, 2016, USTR notified the Department that, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to the April 26, 2016, and May 19, 2016, determinations had been completed and USTR directed the Department to implement those determinations in accordance with section 129(b)(4) of the URAA. Those determinations apply to Pressure Pipe, Line Pipe, OCTG, Solar Panels, Seamless Pipe, and Magnesia Bricks (“Group Two Investigations”) and Wire Strand with respect to the Department's land specificity analysis. Also on May 26, 2016, in accordance with section 129(b)(4) of the URAA, USTR directed the Department to implement those determinations as well.

    Nature of the Proceedings

    Section 129 of the URAA governs the nature and effect of determinations issued by the Department to implement findings by WTO dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body. Specifically, section 129(b)(2) of the URAA provides that “notwithstanding any provision of the Tariff Act of 1930,” upon a written request from USTR, the Department shall issue a determination that would render its actions not inconsistent with an adverse finding of a WTO panel or the Appellate Body.10 The Statement of Administrative Action, U.R.A.A., H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), variously refers to such a determination by the Department as a “new,” “second,” and “different” determination.11 After consulting with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees, USTR may direct the Department to implement, in whole or in part, the new determination made under section 129 of the URAA.12 Pursuant to section 129(c) of the URAA, the new determination shall apply with respect to unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date on which USTR directs the Department to implement the new determination.13 The new determination is subject to judicial review, separate and apart from judicial review of the Department's original determination.14

    10See 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(2).

    11See SAA at 1025, 1027.

    12See 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(4).

    13See 19 U.S.C. 3538(c).

    14See 19 U.S.C. 1516(a)(2)(B)(vii).

    Final Determinations: Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the comments and rebuttal comments submitted by interested parties to these proceedings are addressed in the respective final determinations. The issues included in the respective final determinations are as follows: (1) Export Restraints (Magnesia Bricks and Seamless Pipe); (2) Land (Thermal Paper, Line Pipe, Citric Acid, OCTG, Wire Strand, and Seamless Pipe); (3) Public Bodies and Input Specificity (Pressure Pipe, Line Pipe, Lawn Groomers, Kitchen Shelving, OCTG, Wire Strand, Seamless Pipe, Print Graphics, Aluminum Extrusions, Steel Cylinders, and Solar Panels); and (4) Benefit (Market Distortion) (Pressure Pipe, Line Pipe, OCTG, and Solar Panels). Separately, the Department issued a memorandum regarding Drill Pipe, concluding that because the order for Drill Pipe had been revoked pursuant to a final and conclusive decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, there is no longer a need for the Department to issue a determination in connection with this proceeding to render it not inconsistent with the findings in WTO DS437.15 The final determinations are public documents and are 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, complete versions of the final determinations can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed versions of the final determinations and the electronic versions of the final determinations are identical in content.

    15See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Section 129 Proceeding: United States—Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from the People's Republic of China (WTO/DS437): Final Determination for Countervailing Duty Investigation on Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China,” (March 31, 2016); see also Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With International Trade Commission's Injury Determination, Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Pursuant to Court Decision, and Discontinuation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 78037 (December 29, 2014) (Drill Pipe Revocation).

    Final Determinations: Recalculated Countervailing Duty Rates

    The recalculated CVD rates, as included in the final determinations and which remain unchanged from the preliminary determinations for each company, are listed below. As indicated, we made changes to the net subsidy rates in certain proceedings (i.e., Line Pipe, OCTG, Magnesia Bricks, and Seamless Pipe).16 As noted above, the CVD order for Drill Pipe including the corresponding CVD rates have been revoked independently from this Section 129 proceeding.17 The net subsidy rates for the remaining CVD proceedings in DS437 are unchanged.

    16See Final Determination for Export Restraints, Final Determination for Seamless Pipe, and Final Determination for Pressure Pipe, Line Pipe, OCTG, Wire Strand, and Solar Panels.

    17See Drill Pipe Revocation.

    Exporter/producer CVD rate
  • (investigation)
  • Revised CVD rate
    Amended Countervailable Subsidy Rates Ad Valorem (Percent): Line Pipe Huludao Seven-Star Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. (Huludao Seven Star Group), Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd. (Huludao Steel Pipe), and Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd. (Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe) (collectively, the Huludao Companies) 33.43 32.65 Liaoning Northern Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Northern Steel) 40.05 40.05 All Others 36.74 36.35 Amended Countervailable Subsidy Rates Ad Valorem (Percent): OCTG Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co., Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd., and TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. (collectively, TPCO) 10.49 7.71 Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co. and Jiangsu Changbao Precision Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (collectively, Changbao) 12.46 12.46 Wuxi Seamless Pipe Co, Ltd., Jiangsu Fanli Steel Pipe Co, Ltd., Tuoketuo County Mengfeng Special Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively, Wuxi) 14.95 14.95 Zhejiang Jianli Enterprise Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jianli Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Zhuji Jiansheng Machinery Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Jianli Industry Group Co., Ltd. (collectively, Zhejiang Jinali) 15.78 15.78 All Others 13.41 12.26 Amended Countervailable Subsidy Rates Ad Valorem (Percent): Magnesia Bricks RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., Ltd., RHI Refractories (Dalian) Co., Ltd., and Liaoning RHI Jinding Magnesia Co., Ltd. (RHIJ) (collectively, RHI) 24.24 3.00 Liaoning Mayerton Refractories and Dalian Mayerton Refractories Co. Ltd. (collectively, Mayerton) 253.87 232.63 All Others 24.24 3.00 Amended Countervailable Subsidy Rates Ad Valorem (Percent): Seamless Pipe Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co., Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd., and TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. (collectively, TPCO) 13.66 8.24 Hengyang Steel Tube Group Int'l Trading, Inc., Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd., Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd., Wuxi Resources Steel Making Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Xigang Group Co., Ltd., Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Hunan Valin Steel Co., Ltd., Hunan Valin Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. (collectively, Hengyang) 56.67 49.56 All Others 35.17 28.90
    Implementation of the Revised Cash Deposit Requirements

    As noted above, on April 1, 2016 and May 26, 2016, in accordance with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) of the URAA, USTR directed the Department to implement these final determinations. With respect to all of the investigations except for Magnesia Bricks and Seamless Pipe, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit for estimated countervailing duties at the appropriate rate for each exporter/producer specified above, for entries of subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 1, 2016, and May 26, 2016, respectively unless the applicable cash deposit rates have been superseded by intervening segments or revised based on a redetermination of the investigation as a result of domestic litigation. For Magnesia Bricks and Seamless Pipe, the Department's determinations are that there are insufficient bases on which to initiate investigations into the export restraint programs. As a result, the Department intends to reduce all cash deposit rates in these two proceedings applicable as of May 26, 2016. As noted above, the order on Drill Pipe and corresponding cash deposits instructions have been revoked independently from these Section 129 proceedings.18 This notice of implementation of these section 129 final determinations is published in accordance with section 129(c)(2)(A) of the URAA.

    18See Drill Pipe Revocation.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Attachment: CVD Investigations Examined in the Section 129 Proceedings for WTO DS437 Case No. Case short cite Final determination and order C-570-921 Thermal Paper Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 57323 (October 2, 2008) (Thermal Paper), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Thermal Paper Decision Memorandum). Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 72 FR 70958 (November 24, 2008). C-570-931 Pressure Pipe Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 4936 (January 28, 2009) (Pressure Pipe), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Pressure Pipe Decision Memorandum). Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 74 FR 11712 (March 19, 2009). C-570-936 Line Pipe Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 70961 (November 24, 2008) (Line Pipe), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Line Pipe Decision Memorandum). Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 74 FR 4136 (January 23, 2009). C-570-938 Citric Acid Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 16836 (April 13, 2009) (Citric Acid), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Citric Acid Decision Memorandum). Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 74 FR 25705 (May 29, 2009). C-570-940 Lawn Groomers Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 29180 (June 19, 2009) (Lawn Groomers), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Lawn Groomers Decision Memorandum). Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 74 FR 38399 (August 3, 2009). C-570-942 Kitchen Shelving Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 37012 (July 27, 2009) (Kitchen Shelving), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Kitchen Shelving Decision Memorandum). Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 74 FR 46973 (September 14, 2009). C-570-944 OCTG Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, 74 FR 64045 (December 7, 2009) (OCTG), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (OCTG Decision Memorandum). Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 2010). C-570-946 Wire Strand Pre-Stressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 28557 (May 21, 2010) (Wire Strand), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Wire Strand Decision Memorandum). Pre-Stressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 38977 (July 7, 2010). C-570-955 Magnesia Bricks Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 45472 (August 2, 2010) (Magnesia Bricks), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Magnesia Bricks Decision Memorandum). Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 57442 (September 21, 2010). C-570-957 Seamless Pipe Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 75 FR 57444 (September 21, 2010) (Seamless Pipe), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Seamless Pipe Decision Memorandum). Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 69050 (November 10, 2010). C-570-959 Print Graphics Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 59212 (September 27, 2010) (Print Graphics), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Print Graphics Decision Memorandum). Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 70201 (November 17, 2010). C-570-966 Drill Pipe Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 76 FR 1971 (January 11, 2011) (Drill Pipe), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Drill Pipe Decision Memorandum). Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 11758 (March 3, 2011). (Note: The CVD order on drill pipe was revoked. However, the litigation is not yet final and complete. Drill Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With International Trade Commission's Injury Determination, Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Pursuant to Court Decision, and Discontinuation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 78037 (December 29, 2014)). C-570-968 Aluminum Extrusions Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521 (April 4, 2011) (Aluminum Extrusions), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Aluminum Extrusions Decision Memorandum). Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011). C-570-978 Steel Cylinders High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 26738 (May 7, 2012) (Steel Cylinders), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Steel Cylinders Decision Memorandum). High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 37384 (June 21, 2012). C-570-980 Solar Panels Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 77 FR 63788 (October 17, 2012) (Solar Panels), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Solar Panels Decision Memorandum). Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012).
    [FR Doc. 2016-13691 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE658 Permits; Foreign Fishing AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of application for permit; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS publishes for public review and comment information regarding a permit application for transshipment of Atlantic herring by Canadian vessels, submitted under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is necessary for NMFS to make a determination that the permit application can be approved.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by June 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by docket NOAA-HQ-2016-0071, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-HQ-2016-0071, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Mark Wildman, International Fisheries Division, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Wildman at (301) 427-8386 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to issue a transshipment permit authorizing a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage in fishing consisting solely of transporting fish or fish products at sea from a point within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or, with the concurrence of a state, within the boundaries of that state, to a point outside the United States. In addition, Public Law 104-297, section 105(e), directs the Secretary to issue section 204(d) permits for up to 14 Canadian transport vessels to receive Atlantic herring harvested by United States fishermen and to be used in sardine processing. Transshipment must occur from within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69 degrees 30 minutes west and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary.

    Section 204(d)(3)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that an application may not be approved until the Secretary determines that “no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for which the application is submitted has indicated . . . an interest in performing the transportation at fair and reasonable rates.” NMFS is publishing this notice as part of its effort to make such a determination with respect to the application described below.

    Summary of Application

    NMFS received an application requesting authorization for four Canadian transport vessels to receive transfers of herring from United States purse seine vessels, stop seines, and weirs for the purpose of transporting the herring to Canada for processing. The transshipment operations will occur within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69°30′ W. longitude and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. John Henderschedt, Director, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13619 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE613 Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshops.

    SUMMARY:

    Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in July, August, and September of 2016. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2016 and will be announced in a future notice.

    DATES:

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on July 28, August 25, and September 29, 2016.

    The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on July 8, July 13, August 2, August 5, September 1, and September 6, 2016.

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Fort Lauderdale, FL; Rosenberg, TX; and Panama City, FL.

    The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Galveston, TX; Ronkonkoma, NY; Warwick, RI; Kenner, LA; Largo, FL; and Palm Coast, FL.

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details on workshop locations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/workshops/index.html.

    Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops

    Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 121 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2007.

    Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.

    Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations

    1. July 28, 2016, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn, 999 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.

    2. August 25, 2016, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 3312 Vista Drive, Rosenberg, TX 77471.

    3. September 29, 2016, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn, 7115 Coastal Palms Boulevard, Panama City, FL 32408.

    Registration

    To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at [email protected] or at (386) 852-8588.

    Registration Materials

    To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:

    • Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

    • Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.

    Workshop Objectives

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

    Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops

    Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 232 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.

    In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.

    Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations

    1. July 8, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Doubletree Hotel, 1702 Seawall Boulevard, Galveston, TX 77550.

    2. July 13, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 3485 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779.

    3. August 2, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 1 Thurber Street, Warwick, RI 02886.

    4. August 5, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.

    5. September 1, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 210 Seminole Boulevard, Largo FL 33770.

    6. September 6, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 55 Town Center Boulevard, Palm Coast, FL 32164.

    Registration

    To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158.

    Registration Materials

    To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:

    • Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

    • Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.

    • Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

    Workshop Objectives

    The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13641 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE652 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 156th meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 28-29, 2016. The Council will convene on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and will reconvene on Wednesday, June 29, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Buccaneer Hotel, 5007 Shoys, Christiansted, USVI 00820.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone (787) 766-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council will hold its 156th regular Council Meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:

    June 28, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. ○ Call to Order ○ Adoption of Agenda ○ Consideration of 155th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions ○ Executive Director's Report ○ SSC Report—Dr. Richard Appeldoorn ○ Island Based FMP Developments Status and Next Steps Council DRAFT goals and objectives Action 1—Species to include for federal management Action 2—Assigning species to complexes  —Working group report  —Council guidance on alternative groupings Action 3—Developing reference points, including ABCs and ACLs  —ABC Control Rule   —Working group report   —Council guidance on ABC   Control Rule structure and   alternatives Action 4—Framework measures ○ Timing of Accountability Measures New Action 5 Final selection of preferred alternatives Council direction to staff on next steps, including scheduling public hearings ○ Developing permits for fishing activities in federal waters Puerto Rico Snapper Unit 2 DRAFT scoping document St. Thomas USVI spiny lobster white paper ○ AM-based closures—2016 species/species complexes and closure dates —PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD—

    (5-minutes presentations)

    June 28, 2016, 5:15 p.m.-6 p.m. ○ Administrative Matters —Budget Update FY 16 —Other Administrative Business —Closed Session June 29, 2016, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. —Standing Committee or AP for Recreational Sampling Plan Development ○ Exempting Fishing Permit Application-Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources ○ Presentations: —Spiny Lobster Project—Carlos Velazquez —SEFSC: Caribbean Regional Action Plan for the National Climate Science Strategy ○ Outreach and Education Report—Dr. Alida Ortíz ○ MREP Update—Helena Antoun ○ Enforcement Issues: —Puerto Rico-DNER —U.S. Virgin Islands-DPNR —U.S. Coast Guard —NMFS/NOAA ○ Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff —PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD— (5-minute presentations) ○ Other Business

    The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. To further accommodate discussion and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.

    The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be subjects for formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice, and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: June 6, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13652 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Harmful Algal Bloom Programs Termination of Regional Rotations AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    NOAA publishes this notice to amend 74 Federal Register 84 (May 4, 2009) pp. 20465-20469 titled, “Notice of implementation of new competitive Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms Program and regional rotation of the existing and new national competitive HAB Programs.” This notice announces the completion of the regional rotation. In addition, further information about competitive objectives, procedures, and guidance will be posted in announcements on the OMB-designated government wide Web site for finding and applying for Federal financial assistance, currently www.Grants.gov. All other aspects of the original Federal Register Notice remain the same.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Quay Dortch, ECOHAB Program Coordinator and PCMHAB Program Manager, 301/713-3338 ext 157, [email protected] or Marc Suddleson, MERHAB Program Manager, 301/713-3338 ext 162, [email protected], Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Control Act (HABHRCA), as amended, codified at 33 U.S.C. 4001-4009, authorized the establishment of three national competitive programs on Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2014, Public Law 113-124; authorized the continuation of these programs. NOAA implements HABHRCA through the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) Program, the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Bloom (MERHAB) Program and the Prevention, Control and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms (PCMHAB) Program. ECOHAB provides coastal managers with the understanding, tools, and models to predict the development, extent, and toxicity of HABs and their impacts, leading to early warning and new prevention and mitigation strategies. MERHAB builds capacity and enhances partnerships between managers, researchers, and private industry to improve monitoring for HAB cells and toxins and responding to HAB events. The PCM HAB program transitions promising technologies and strategies for preventing, controlling, or mitigating HABs and their impacts from development through demonstration and technology transfer for field application by end-users. A regional rotation for the three Harmful Algal Blooms Programs was implemented in Fiscal Year 2009. All three regions have been rotated once and a rotation cycle is now complete. Beginning in 2016, the regional rotation will not be used to define the geographic scope of future competitions. Hereafter, the necessary objectives, procedures, and guidance for Harmful Algal Bloom funding competitions will be posted in announcements on the OMB-designated government wide Web site for finding and applying for Federal financial assistance, currently www.Grants.gov.

    Other Information

    Administrative Procedure Act: Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act, (5 U.S.C. 553), or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice and comment is not required, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq).

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Christopher C. Cartwright, Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative Officer, Ocean Service and Coastal Zone Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13670 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Market Risk Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announces that on June 27, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., the Market Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC) will hold a public meeting at the CFTC's Washington, DC, headquarters. The MRAC will discuss: (1) The CCP Risk Management Subcommittee's draft recommendations on how Central Counterparties (CCPs) can better coordinate their efforts in preparing for the default of a significant clearing member, and (2) the role of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and CFTC in the resolution of both banks and CCPs.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 27, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Written statements should be submitted by mail to: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Secretary of the Commission, or by electronic mail to: [email protected] Please use the title “Market Risk Advisory Committee” in any written statement you submit. Any statements submitted in connection with the committee meeting will be made available to the public, including publication on the CFTC Web site, http://www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Petal Walker, MRAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5010.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public may also listen to the meeting by telephone by calling a domestic toll-free telephone or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation.

    Domestic Toll Free: 1-866-844-9416.

    International Toll and Toll Free: Will be posted on the CFTC's Web site, http://www.cftc.gov, on the page for the meeting, under Related Documents.

    Pass Code/Pin Code: 1519074.

    After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's Web site, http://www.cftc.gov. All written submissions provided to the CFTC in any form will also be published on the CFTC's Web site. Persons requiring special accommodations to attend the meeting because of a disability should notify the contact person above.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(2).

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13622 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice Requesting Approval of New Collection, CFTC SmartCheck Annual Campaign Impact Tracking Survey, 3038—NEW AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on a proposed collection of information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment. The CFTC's Office of Customer Education and Outreach (OCEO) develops campaigns to change customer behaviors, so that customers can better avoid fraud as defined under the Commodities Exchange Act. The OCEO intends to survey the public by identifying customers and determining if the CFTC's SmartCheckSM campaign is helping them to identify, avoid, and report financial fraud.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden. Please refer to this notice in any correspondence. Comments, identified by “CFTC SmartCheck Annual Campaign Impact Tracking Survey,” and Collection Number 3038—NEW may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency Web site, via its Comments Online process: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

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

    Hand delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method, and identify that it is for the “SmartCheck Campaign Annual Tracking Survey.”

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nisha Smalls, Lead Customer Outreach Specialist, 202-418-5000, [email protected], Office of Customer Education and Outreach, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they collect or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) as “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting . . . facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format [from] ten or more persons.” An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c). The Commission is submitting this collection of information to OMB for approval and assigning of a collection number, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.10.

    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. Under OMB regulations, which implement provisions of the PRA, certain “facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the Federal Register or other publications,” 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), or “facts or opinions obtained or solicited at or in connection with public hearings or meetings,” 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(8), are excluded from the OMB approval process.

    Title: CFTC SmartCheck Annual Campaign Impact Tracking Survey (OMB Control No. 3038—NEW). This is a request for approval of a new collection.

    Abstract: In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act 2 expanded the Commission's authority to, among other matters related to regulatory oversight, establish funding of consumer education initiatives under its new Whistleblower authority.3 Under this new authority, the Commission established an Office of Customer Education and Outreach (“OCEO”) to, among other efforts, survey the public regarding consumer education initiatives.4 This notice announces a public survey. This survey will include screening questions to identify the correct respondents and questions to determine if the CFTC's SmartCheckSM campaign is helping customers identify, avoid, and report financial fraud.

    2See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of the Dodd-Frank Act may be accessed at http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/index.htm.

    3See 7 U.S.C. 26.

    4See 17 CFR 165.12.

    The OCEO will use the information collected in the survey to refine the methods used to inform the public about how to best detect and report financial fraud. This will be done by creating a final summary report that includes key findings from the survey.

    Findings from the summary report will be used to directionally inform the outreach efforts that the CFTC undertakes concerning helping customers avoid financial fraud.

    The survey will be administered using an online survey tool. The online modality approach will allow presentation of test material to participants in a more convenient and time-efficient manner than other collection methods such as mall intercepts. The online method also allows for a quicker turnaround for data collection. No other collection methods will be used.

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

    You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.5

    5 17 CFR 145.9.

    Burden Statement: The screening questions will take about 1 minute to complete. It is anticipated that 4,000 people will be screened. The survey will take about 15 minutes. The cost of the screener survey will be approximately $3,125, which equates to $46.85 per burden hour. 2,000 people will take the 15 minute survey. The cost of the full survey will be approximately $46,875, which equates to $93.75 per burden hour. Based on these assumptions, the total burden hours will be 566.7 hours. The Commission estimates the average burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden Hours Annual
  • reporting
  • Frequency Hours per report Total
    17 CFR 165.12 4,000 1 response per respondent 1 minute per response 4,000 66.7 hours, total burden. 17 CFR 165.12 2,000 1 response per respondent 15 minutes per response 2,000 500 hours, burden hour.

    The proposed survey questions appear below:

    CFTC SmartCheck Annual Campaign Impact Tracking Survey CFTC TARGET = Age 50-65; HH income 60k+; Answers 1 or 2 for question 1; Invests in 2 or more products in question 2 Screener

    1. When it comes to family and personal investments like stocks, mutual funds, or other trading products, how likely are you to be involved in making decisions for your household?

    1 Very likely. 2 Somewhat likely. 3 Not too likely. 4 Not at all likely.

    2. Below is a list of financial products. Please select all that you currently are invested in or have invested in.

    1 Stocks or shares. 2 Precious metals like gold or silver. 3 Foreign currency trading (FOREX). 4 Any type of futures or options. 5 None of these [Single Punch (SP)]. 6 Don't know [SP]. Survey [GRID, SP ACROSS]

    Please answer yes or no to each of the following questions.

    Yes No 1 2 3 Have you read, seen, or heard anything about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)? 4 Have you read, seen, or heard anything about CFTC SmartCheck, a campaign that promotes expert tools and resources to check the background of financial professionals, learn how to avoid investment fraud, and report suspicious activity? 5 Have you read, seen, or heard anything about SmartCheck.gov, a Web site that links to databases which allow investors to check the background of financial professionals? 6 Have you read, seen, or heard anything about Investor.gov, a Web site that allows you to check the background of investment adviser representatives and firms? 7 Have you read, seen, or heard anything about BrokerCheck.org, a Web site that allows you to check the background of brokers who sell stocks, bonds, mutual funds and other securities? [GRID, SP ACROSS. RANDOMIZE GRID ROWS]

    Below are a number of actions that you may or may not be likely to complete. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to complete the actions using the scale below.

    If you were considering investing with someone you had not invested with before, how likely are you to:

    Very likely Somewhat likely Not likely or unlikely Not too likely Not at all likely 1 2 3 4 5 8 Review performance history. 9 Talk to references and/or past clients. 10 Confirm certifications and/or education. 11 Perform a general Internet search. 12 Check disciplinary history with an official financial regulator. 13 Check licensing and/or registration status with an official financial regulator. 14 Personally interview. 15 Check job affiliations with an official financial regulator. 16 None of these/don't know [SP]. [SP]

    17. Generally speaking, how concerned are you about unknowingly being part of a fraudulent investment?

    1 Very concerned. 2 Somewhat concerned. 3 Not too concerned. 4 Not at all concerned. [SP]

    18. If you suspected an investment you were aware of was fraudulent, how likely would you be to report it to a government financial agency such as the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)?

    1 Very likely. 2 Somewhat likely. 3 Not too likely. 4 Not at all likely. [SP]

    19. If you became aware that an investment you were already a part of was fraudulent, how likely would you be to report it to a government financial agency such as the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)?

    1 Very likely. 2 Somewhat likely. 3 Not too likely. 4 Not at all likely. [MP; RANDOMIZE LEAVING LAST 1 AT THE END]

    20. Which, if any, of the following do you think are potential signs of investment fraud? If the person selling the investment . . .

    1 said the investment has a guaranteed rate of return. 2 said s/he has a special credential, so they can be trusted. 3 said that many of your friends have already invested in the opportunity. 4 was willing to charge you half of the regular commission. 5 said the opportunity was closing soon, so it was important to act quickly. 6 None of these [SP]. [GRID, SP ACROSS. RANDOMIZE GRID ROWS]

    Below are a number of statements with which you may or may not agree. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement.

    Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 21 It is important to know the common signs of fraud when investing. 22 The government reviews and investigates all alleged reports of investment fraud. 23 I know where to go to report suspected or known incidents of investment fraud. 24 I know where to go to check the background of a financial professional. 25 Before I invest, it is important to check the registration and/or licensing status of a financial professional. 26 Each year, it is important to check the registration and/or licensing of a financial professional with whom I invest. 27 Before I invest, it is important to check the disciplinary history of a financial professional. 28 Each year, it is important to check the disciplinary history of a financial professional. Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13623 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14782-000] Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 4, 2016, Energy Resources USA Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the R.D. Bailey Dam Hydroelectric Project (R.D. Bailey Project or project) to be located at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' R.D. Bailey Dam on the Guyandotte River in Mingo and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 90-foot-long by 45-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse to be located downstream on the tailrace side of R.D. Bailey Dam; (2) a new 12-foot by 9-foot by 250-foot-long concrete conduit connecting the existing outlet tunnel with the powerhouse; (3) two 5-megawatt (MW) vertical Kaplan turbine-generator units with a total generating capacity of 10 MW; (4) a new 120-foot-long by 80-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a new 60-foot-long by 50-foot-wide substation with a 10-mega-volt-ampere 4.16/69-kilovolt (kV) three-phase step-up transformer; (6) a new 0.6-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The R.D. Bailey Project would have an estimated annual generation of 38.5 gigawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, Energy Resources USA Inc., 350 Lincoln Road, 2nd Floor, Miami, FL 33139; telephone (954) 248-8425.

    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone: (202) 502-6736.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14782-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14782) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13648 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13757-002; Project No. 13761-002; Project No. 13768-002] FFP Missouri 5, LLC; FFP Missouri 6, LLC; Solia 6 Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 380, Office of Energy Projects staff has reviewed applications for original licenses for the Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13757-002), Emsworth Back Channel Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13761-002), and Montgomery Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13768-002) on the Ohio River. These projects are referred to collectively as the Ohio River Projects.

    The projects would all be located at existing locks and dams owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located on the Ohio River near Emsworth, Pennsylvania, in Allegheny County at river mile (RM) 6.2. The Emsworth Back Channel Hydroelectric Project would be located on the Ohio River near Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, in Allegheny County at RM 6.8. The Montgomery Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be located on the Ohio River downstream of Monaca, Pennsylvania, in Beaver County at RM 31.7. The projects would collectively occupy 17.1 acres of federal land.

    Staff has prepared a multi-project environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential environmental effects of the three projects and concludes that constructing and operating the projects, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to these or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659. In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include: “Emsworth Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13757-002, Emsworth Back Channel Hydroelectric Project No. 13761-002, and/or Montgomery Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13768-002,” as appropriate.

    For further information, contact Nicholas Ettema at (202) 502-6565 or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13647 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM16-12-000; Docket No. RM15-21-000] Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures; American Wind Energy Association; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments

    On May 13, 2016, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff conducted a technical conference to discuss select issues related to the petition for rulemaking submitted by the American Wind Energy Association in Docket No. RM15-21-000 and other interconnection-related issues, including the interconnection of electric storage.

    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on any or all of the questions listed in the attachment to this Notice. We emphasize that commenters need not answer all of the questions. We encourage commenters to submit new or additional information in response to these questions rather than information that was previously submitted in Docket Nos. RM16-12-000 and/or RM15-21-000. Commenters should organize responses consistent with the numbering of the attached questions and identify to what extent their responses are generally applicable or pertain to a particular RTO/ISO. Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed in this docket, including technical conference transcripts. These comments must be filed with the Commission no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on June 20, 2016.

    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

    Tony Dobbins (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Information, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6630, [email protected]. Adam Pan (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6023, [email protected]. Dated: June 3, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13650 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL16-77-000] Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 1, 2016, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Michigan South Central Power Agency (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Michigan Electric Transmission Company (Respondent) alleging that Respondent has failed to comply with Section19.1(i) of the Project I Transmission Ownership and Operating Agreement between Complainant and Respondent, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 21, 2016.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13645 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-361-000] Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Gulf Xpress Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Gulf XPress Project (GXP) involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf) in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC, on or before July 5, 2016.

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on April 29, 2016, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP16-361-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP16-361-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meeting its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows: FERC Public Scoping Meeting, Gulf Xpress Project, Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., Cane Ridge High School, 12848 Old Hickory Boulevard, Antioch, TN 37013.

    The doors will open at 5 p.m. at which time we will begin our sign up of speakers for the meetings. For the hour prior to the start of the meeting, Columbia Gulf representatives will be present with maps depicting the project area and to answer questions.

    The scoping meeting will begin at 6 p.m. with a description of our environmental review process by Commission staff, after which speakers will be called. The meeting will end once all speakers have provided their comments or at 10 p.m., whichever comes first. Please note that depending on the number of people signed up to speak, there may be a time limit of 3 minutes to present comments, and speakers should structure their comments accordingly. If time limits are implemented, they will be strictly enforced to ensure that as many individuals as possible are given an opportunity to comment. The meeting will be recorded by a court reporter to ensure comments are accurately recorded. The transcript of the meeting will be entered into the formal record of the Commission proceeding.

    Please note this is not your only opportunity to provide public input; refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the “Additional Information” section of this notice.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    The GXP would increase the existing transportation capacity of Columbia Gulf's system by about 860,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas. According to Columbia Gulf, its project is necessary to provide additional pipeline capacity to meet contracted-for firm transportation demand. The proposed facilities would enable shippers the opportunity to transport natural gas to Gulf Coast high-demand markets, markets in Mississippi and Louisiana that are accessible through delivery points along Columbia Gulf's system, and markets accessible through other interstate pipeline connected to Columbia Gulf's system. Columbia Gulf has entered into binding precedent agreements for 100 percent of the GXP capacity.

    For the GXP, Columbia Gulf proposes to construct, operate, and maintain seven new natural gas-fired turbine-driven compressor stations:

    • The Morehead Compressor Station, a 44,800-horsepower (hp) compressor station in Rowan County, Kentucky;

    • the Paint Lick Compressor Station, a 41,000-hp compressor station in Garrard County, Kentucky;

    • the Goodluck Compressor Station, a 31,8000-hp compressor station in Metcalfe County, Kentucky;

    • the Cane Ridge Compressor Station, a 41,000-hp compressor station in Davidson County, Tennessee;

    • the Clifton Junction Compressor Station, a 31,800-hp compressor station in Wayne County, Tennessee;

    • the New Albany Compressor Station, a 31,800-hp compressor station in Union County, Mississippi; and

    • the Holcomb Compressor Station, a 31,800-hp compressor station in Grenada County, Mississippi.

    The GXP would also involve:

    • Installation of an additional 15,900 hp of compression at the anticipated Grayson Compressor Station 2 in Carter County, Kentucky; and

    2 The Grayson Compressor Station is proposed for construction in Docket No. CP15-539-000 as part of Columbia Gulf's Rayne XPress Certificated Capacity Increase Project. On April 6, 2016, FERC staff issued the Draft EIS for the Columbia Gas Transmission Leach XPress Pipeline Project and the Columbia Gulf Transmission Rayne XPress Expansion Project, which includes the proposed Grayson Compressor Station. As of this date, the Commission has not authorized construction of these facilities.

    • demolition and construction of a new flow control building to upgrade flow control capabilities at the existing Leach C Meter Station in Boyd County, Kentucky.

    All new compressor stations would include a building to house the compressors; filter/separator and gas cooling equipment; suction and discharge piping; and appurtenant facilities. All stations would be fenced and include a permanent access road.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 2.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    The GXP would temporarily disturb about 198 acres during construction with approximately 82 acres converted to permanent use for station operations. At the Grayson Compressor Station site, no additional land would be disturbed during construction beyond that used for the original facility. At the Leach C Meter Station, approximately 1.4 acres of land outside the existing station fence line would be temporarily disturbed during construction. All permanent modifications at the Leach C Meter Station would occur within the existing facility resulting in no new permanent impacts from station operations.

    The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 3 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.

    3 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EIS, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • cultural resources;

    • socioeconomics;

    • land use;

    • air quality and noise;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.4 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    4 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.5 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EIS for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    5 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Columbia Gulf. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.

    • air quality and noise impacts;

    • wildlife impacts;

    • alternative compressor station locations; and

    • health and safety of nearby residences during the operation of the proposed facilities.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all who own homes within certain distances of the compressor and meter station facilities and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    You may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-361-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13649 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Conference Docket Nos. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc ER12-1265-005
  • ER12-1265-006
  • Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc ER12-1266-005

    On June 15, 2016, Commission staff will hold a conference call with Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) beginning at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the conference call is to discuss tariff administration issues related to MISO's pending compliance filings in the above-captioned proceedings to ensure that the versions of the tariff sheets filed are accurate and complete.

    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to listen to the conference call. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).

    The conference call will not be webcast or transcribed. However, an audio listen-only line will be provided. Those wishing to access the listen-only line must email Sarah McKinley ([email protected]) by 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on June 9, 2016, providing name, email, and phone number, in order to receive the call-in information the day before the conference call. Please use the following text for the subject line: “ER12-1266-005 listen-only line registration.”

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1 (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For additional information, please contact Christopher Gore at (202) 502-8507, [email protected]

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13646 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 16-584] Media Bureau Announces Date by Which LPTV and TV Translator Stations Must Be “Operating” in Order To Participate in Post-Incentive Auction Special Displacement Window AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that, in order to participate in the post-Incentive Auction special displacement window, low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations must be operating on the date that the Channel Reassignment Public Notice is released following the completion of the reverse auction.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shaun Maher, Video Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, [email protected], (202) 418-2324.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission delegated authority to the Media Bureau to announce, after release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice and after eligible full power and Class A television stations have an opportunity to file construction permit applications for their new facilities, including an alternative channel or expanded facility, a limited window for operating LPTV and TV translator stations to submit displacement applications. The Commission's rules limit eligibility to file in the displacement window to “operating low power TV and TV translator stations that are displaced . . . as a result of the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction.” The Commission delegated authority to the Media Bureau to announce the terms of the limited displacement window consistent with the approach outlined in the Incentive Auction R&O.

    For these purposes, the Media announces that it interprets an “operating” LPTV or TV translator station that is displaced as a result of the incentive auction to mean one that is operating on the date of release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice. Moreover, the Media Bureau clarifies that for these purposes a station is “operating” if it has licensed its authorized construction permit facilities or has an application for a license to cover on file with the Commission on that date. LPTV stations will not be required to actually cease operations on their current channels until well after the Channel Reassignment Public Notice is released. But the new full power and Class A channel assignments announced in the Channel Reassignment Public Notice and the new 600 MHz band plan announced contemporaneously will enable LPTV stations to determine whether they will eventually be required to move from their current channel to accommodate a new primary licensee and thus whether they would wish to consider filing for a displacement channel during the special displacement window. Determining the universe of displaced operating LPTV stations as of the release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice will also assist the Media Bureau in identifying channels that can be proposed by displaced stations based on repacking and optimization software and issuing a public notice listing potential channel assignments in advance of the displacement window.

    By announcing the deadline for identifying operating LPTV stations now, well in advance of the release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice, the Media Bureau seeks to provide LPTV and TV translator station permittees with “sufficient warning of this crucial deadline to allow them to complete construction and license permitted facilities.” Permittees of digital LPTV and TV translators that are not operating on the date of release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice will have to wait until the completion of the special displacement window for operating LPTV and TV translator stations before being able to file a displacement application and propose a channel from the smaller universe of unused television channels.

    The Media Bureau also reminds LPTV and TV translator permittees that the Commission has extended the construction deadline for new digital LPTV and TV translator stations to the new digital transition date for the LPTV and TV translator service, which is 51 months after the release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice. Thus, any construction efforts they may make between now and release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice are completely voluntary.

    This action is taken by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated by 47 CFR 0.283 of the Commission's rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Barbara Kreisman Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13624 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceeding, or arbitration.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shelley E. Garr, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13760 Filed 6-7-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION [BAC 6735-01] Sunshine Act Notice June 6, 2016. FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

    Document 2016-12966, June 1, 2016.

    PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING:

    10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 8, 2016.

    PLACE:

    The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

    STATUS:

    Open.

    CHANGES IN MEETING:

    The Commission has cancelled the meeting previously scheduled in Secretary of Labor v. American Coal Company, Docket No. LAKE 2011-13.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

    Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Sarah L. Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13711 Filed 6-7-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 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 July 5, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Northern Interstate Financial, Inc., Norway, Michigan; to merge with C.F.C. Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire First National Bank of Crystal Falls, both in Crystal Falls, Michigan.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 6, 2016.

    Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13639 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Title: Evaluation of the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative: Part Two

    OMB No.: New Collection.

    Description

    The purpose of this evaluation is to respond to a set of cross-cutting evaluation questions posed by the Children's Bureau. This new data collection is the second part of a larger data collection effort being conducted for the evaluation of the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative. The first group of instruments for this evaluation has already been submitted, and a request for clearance has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (see Federal Register Volume 80, No. 211, November 2, 2015 and Federal Register Volume 81, No. 41, March 2, 2016). This notice details the second group of instruments that will be used for data collection as part of this evaluation. The Evaluation of the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative is sponsored by the Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Capacity Building Collaborative includes three centers (Center for States, Center for Tribes, Center for Courts) funded by the Children's Bureau to provide national child welfare expertise and evidence-informed training and technical assistance services to State, Tribal and Territorial public child welfare agencies and Court Improvement Programs (CIP). The Centers offer a wide array of services including, but not limited to: Web-based content and resources, product development and dissemination, self-directed and group-based training, virtual learning and peer networking events, and tailored consultation and coaching. During the project period the Centers' services will be evaluated by both Center-specific evaluations and a Cross-Center Evaluation. The Center-specific evaluations are designed to collect data on Center-specific processes and outcomes.

    The Cross-Center Evaluation will examine: The extent to which key partners across and within the Centers are collaborating; whether the capacity building service interventions offered by the Centers are evaluable; the degree to which Centers follow common protocols; whether service interventions are delivered or performed as designed; how satisfied recipients are with the services received; how effective the service interventions were; which service approaches were most effective and under what conditions; and the costs of services. The Cross-Center Evaluation is utilizing a longitudinal mixed methods approach to evaluate the Centers' services as they develop and mature over the course of the study period.

    Multiple data collection strategies will be used to efficiently capture quantitative and qualitative data to enable analyses that address each evaluation question. The first set of Cross-Center and Center-specific instruments submitted as part of the larger information collection included: Satisfaction surveys to assess recipients' satisfaction; a leadership interview, administered to all State child welfare directors, Tribal child welfare directors, and CIP coordinators that receive services; a Web-based collaboration survey, administered to the directors and staff of the three Centers; assessment tools; and service-specific feedback forms.

    This second group of data sources proposed for the Cross-Center Evaluation in this notice include: (1) A capacity survey to capture perceived changes in organizational capacity after receiving Center services; (2) a foundational assessment to capture contextual data regarding the organizational health and functioning of child welfare agencies and courts; (3) a follow-up survey that will examine short-term and intermediate outcomes among CIPs that receive different levels of tailored services following continuous quality improvement (CQI) workshops; and(4)a key informant survey and interview to examine how capacity building services are incorporated into state and tribal activities to support implementation of Public Law 113-183. Additional Center-specific data sources proposed in this notice include (1) registration forms such as webinar and CapLEARN (learning management system) registration forms and (2) service-specific feedback forms and interviews, such as the Center for States Tailored Services interviews and the Center for Courts Universal and Constituency Services survey.

    Respondents

    Respondents of this second set of data collection instruments will include (1) child welfare agency staff and stakeholders who directly receive services that have been tailored to the needs of their jurisdiction and (2) CIP coordinators, CIP Directors, and other project staff. The proposed data collection will span three years.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total annual burden hours
    Capacity Survey 462 1 .39 180.18 Foundational Assessment Survey 277 1 .1 27.7 CQI Workshop Follow-Up Survey 48 2 .12 11.52 P.L.113-183 Key Informant Survey 52 1 .26 13.52 P.L. 113-183 Key Informant Interview 5 1 1 5 Center for Courts: Universal and Constituency Services 104 1 .41 42.64 Webinar Registration 4,650 1 .03 139.5 Center for States: Tailored Services Interviews 60 1 1 60 Center for States: Assessment and Work Planning Survey 150 1 .25 37.5 CapLearn Registration 600 1 .084 50.4

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 567.96.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13610 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: Ethnic Community Self-Help Program Data Indicators.

    OMB No.: 0970—NEW.

    Description: The ACF Office of Refugee Resettlement proposes to collect information from Ethnic Community-Based Organizations (ECBOs) awarded federal funds under HHS-2016-ACF-ORR-1129. The information, collected through a questionnaire, is expected to provide information on Program objectives semi-annually in order for program staff to gauge the Program's progress for reporting and evaluation purposes.

    Respondents: ECBOs awarded under HHS-2016-ACF-ORR-1129.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours per response
  • Total burden hours
    ECSH Data Indicators 10 2 1 20

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 20.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13662 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0937-0025-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number OMB No. 0937-0025, which expires on November 30, 2016. Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: The Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service application.

    Abstract: The principal purpose for collecting the information is to permit HHS to determine eligibility for appointment of applicants into the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service (Corps). The Corps is one of the seven Uniformed Services of the United States (37 U.S.C. 101(3)), and appointments in the Corps are made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 204 et seq. and 42 CFR 21.58. The application consists of forms PHS-50, PHS-1813, and the Commissioned Corps Personal Statement.

    Likely Respondents: Candidates/Applicants to the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Type of respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Prequalification Questionnaire Interested Health Professionals 6,000 1 15/60 1,500 Form PHS-50 Health Professionals 1,000 1 1.0 1,000 Form PHS-1813 References (college professors/teachers) 4,000 1 15/60 1,000 Addendum: Commissioned Corps Personal Statement Health Professionals 1,000 45/60 750 Total 4,250

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Terry S. Clark, Asst. Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13602 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-49-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Request for Public Comment: 30 Day Information Collection: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Contracts AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for an extension of a previously approved collection of information titled, “Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Contracts,” OMB Control Number 0917-0037. IHS is requesting OMB to approve an extension for this collection, which expires on July 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: July 11, 2016. Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your written comments and suggestions regarding the information collection contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for IHS.

    To request more information on the collection, or to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instruction(s), contact Mr. Chris Buchanan by one of the following methods:

    Mail: Mr. Chris Buchanan, Director, IHS Office of Direct Services and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT), Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop O8E17C, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Phone: 301-443-1104.

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 301-480-3192.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This previously approved information collection project was last published in the Federal Register (81 FR 24108), on April 25, 2016 and allowed 60 days for public comment. No public comment was received in response to the notice. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment to be submitted directly to OMB. A copy of the supporting statement is available at www.regulations.gov (see Docket ID IHS-2016-0003).

    I. Abstract

    Representatives of the IHS seek renewal of the approval for information collections conducted under 25 CFR part 900, implementing the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), as amended (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), which describes how contracts are awarded to Indian Tribes. The rule at 25 CFR part 900 was developed through negotiated rulemaking with Tribes in 1996 and governs, among other things, what must be included in a Tribe's initial ISDEAA contract proposal to IHS. A response is required to obtain and retain a benefit.

    The information requirements for this rule represent significant differences from other agencies in several respects. Under the Act, the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services is directed to enter into self-determination contracts with Tribes upon request, unless specific declination criteria apply, and, generally, Tribes may renew these contracts annually, whereas other agencies provide grants on a discretionary or competitive basis. Additionally, IHS awards contracts for multiple programs whereas other agencies usually award single grants to Tribes.

    The IHS uses the information collected to determine applicant eligibility, evaluate applicant capabilities, protect the service population, safeguard Federal funds and other resources, and permit the Federal agency to administer and evaluate contract programs. Tribal governments or Tribal organizations provide the information by submitting contract proposals, and related information, to the IHS, as required under Public Law 93-638. No third party notification or public disclosure burden is associated with this collection.

    II. Request for Comments

    The IHS requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.

    Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

    It is IHS policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0917-0037.

    Title: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Contracts, 25 CFR part 900.

    Brief Description of Collection: An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization is required to submit this information each time that it proposes to contract with the IHS under the ISDEAA. Each response may vary in its length. In addition, each Subpart of 25 CFR part 900 concerns different parts of the contracting process. For example, Subpart C relates to provisions of the contents for the initial contract proposal. The respondents do not incur the burden associated with Subpart C when contracts are renewed. Subpart F describes minimum standards for management systems used by Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations under these contracts. Subpart G addresses the negotiability of all reporting and data requirements in the contracts. Responses are required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Federally recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations.

    Number of Respondents: 566.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,510.

    Estimated Time per Response: Varies from 1 to 1,040 hours, with an average of 15.968 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: Each time programs, functions, services or activities are contracted from the IHS under the ISDEAA.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 24,112.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operation, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13679 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5946-N-01] Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the First Quarter of Calendar Year 2016 AGENCY:

    Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly Federal Register notices of all regulatory waivers that HUD has approved. Each notice covers the quarterly period since the previous Federal Register notice. The purpose of this notice is to comply with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act. This notice contains a list of regulatory waivers granted by HUD during the period beginning on January 1, 2016, and ending on March 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general information about this notice, contact Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the first quarter of calendar year 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:

    1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;

    2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;

    3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. These notices (each covering the period since the most recent previous notification) shall:

    a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;

    b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;

    c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;

    d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and

    e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.

    Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.

    This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.

    This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2016. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.

    Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.

    Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.

    Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the first quarter of calendar year 2016) before the next report is published (the second quarter of calendar year 2016), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the first quarter in the next report.

    Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Helen R. Kanovsky, General Counsel. Appendix Listing of Waivers of Regulatory Requirements Granted by Offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development January 1, 2016 Through March 31, 2016 Note to Reader:

    More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.

    The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:

    I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.

    II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.

    III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

    I. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2).

    Project/Activity: Clackamas County, OR requested a waiver of 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) in order to shorten its citizen comment period for a Consolidated Plan amendment in order to provide emergency relocation assistance to qualified displaced low- and moderate-income residents of two apartment complexes that required an emergency evacuation in the storm affected area that experienced prolonged periods of heavy rainfall resulting in flooding, electrical outages, and significant landslides.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) requires that citizens be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on substantial amendments to its consolidated plan. The citizen participation plan requires that citizens be given no less than 30 days to comment on substantial amendments before they are implemented. The city asked to shorten its citizen comment period to seven days so that it may quickly reallocate Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on the effects of the extreme winter storms.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: January 11, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The county was allowed to shorten its comment period from 30 days to 7 days so it could provide emergency relocation assistance more quickly to qualified displaced low- and moderate-income residents displaced by an evacuation order.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4548.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6).

    Project/Activity: The City of Salem, OR, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6), which prohibits additional assistance under HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) to a project previously assisted with HOME funds during the period of affordability. The City requested this waiver in order to invest $210,330 of HOME funds into three HOME rental projects—Chemawa Village, Marilyn Townhomes, and Renaissance Place.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6) prohibits, except for one year after project completion, HOME assistance from being provided to a project that was previously assisted with HOME funds during the period of affordability.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: March 11, 2016.

    Reason Waived: In 2013, HUD was notified that Salem Kaiser Community Development Corporation (SKCDC), responsible for 148 HOME-assisted rental units in 10 properties, was experiencing financial and operational issues. HUD provided extensive technical assistance and in 2014 ownership of SKCDC's portfolio was transferred to Catholic Community Service Foundation (CCSF). A portfolio analysis indicated that each of the three projects—Chemawa Village, Marilyn Townhomes, and Renaissance Place—had negative net operating income, was unable to service debt flow, had significant deferred maintenance, and had no replacement reserve. The City sought this waiver to assist CCSF in preserving the affordable HOME-assisted units, by investing $210,330 of HOME funds, and an additional $251,808 of CDBG funds, to rehabilitate 21 HOME units. The investment of additional HOME funds is still within the HOME maximum per-unit subsidy limits at 24 CFR 92.205(a). In addition, as a condition of the waiver, HUD is requiring that the City extend the periods of affordability for each of the three projects for an additional five years.

    Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 570.200(g).

    Project/Activity: In September 2014, Snohomish County, WA received a $1.5 million supplemental CDBG award that was reallocated under section 106(c)(4) of the Housing and Community Development Act. The funds were to be used as a portion of the requisite match for Hazard Mitigation Program Grant funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for voluntary buyouts of properties impacted by the State Road 530 Flooding and Mudslide disaster.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 570.200(g) requires that recipients limit the amount of CDBG funds obligated for planning and administration during each program year to an amount no greater than 20 percent of the sum of its grant(s) made for that program year plus the program income received by the recipient and its subrecipients during that program year.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: January 29, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The county did not receive its supplemental funds until midway through its 2014 program year and anticipated the need for additional administrative and planning obligations associated with the buyout activities, as it may take several years to complete the activities and expend the supplemental CDBG funds.

    The waiver of the provisions of 24 CFR 570.200(g) allows the obligation of up to 20 percent of its supplemental award over the life of the grant, rather than solely during program year 2014. Absent a waiver, the county would effectively be prevented from using the statutorily-allowed percentage of funds for administrative and planning purposes needed to carry out activities under its supplemental award.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director of Entitlement Communities Division, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4548.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 570.200(h).

    Project/Activity: On January 28, 2016, HUD issued a CPD Notice CPD-16-01 1 implementing procedures to govern the submission and review of consolidated plans and action plans for FY 2016 funding prior to the enactment of a FY 2016 HUD appropriation bill. These procedures apply to any Entitlement, Insular or Hawaii nonentitlement grantee with a program year start date prior to, or up to 60 days after, HUD's announcement of the FY 2016 formula program funding allocations for CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA formula funding. Any grantee with an FY 2016 program year start date during the period starting October 1, 2015, and ending August 16, 2016 or 60 days after HUD announcement of FY 2016 allocation amounts (whichever comes first), is advised not to submit its consolidated plan/action plan until the FY 2016 formula allocations have been announced.

    1 See https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Notice-CPD-16-01-Guidance-on-Submitting-Consolidated-Plans-and-Annual-Action-Plans-for-FY-2016.pdf.

    Nature of Requirement: The Entitlement CDBG program regulations provide for situations in which a grantee may incur costs against its CDBG grant prior to the award of its grant from HUD. Under the regulations at 24 CFR 570.200(h), the effective date of a grantee's grant agreement is either the grantee's program year start date or the date that the grantee's annual action plan is received by HUD, whichever is later. This waiver would allow grantees to treat the effective date of the FY 2016 program year as the grantee's program year start date or date or the date that the grantee's annual action plan is received by HUD, whichever is earlier.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: January 6, 2016, for effect on October 21, 2015.

    Reason Waived: Under the provisions of the Notice, a grantee's action plan may not be submitted to (and thus received by) HUD until several months after the grantee's program year start date. Lengthy delays in the receipt of annual appropriations by HUD, and implementation of the policy to delay submission of FY 2016 Action Plans, may have negative consequences for CDBG grantees that intend to incur eligible costs prior to the award of FY 2016 funding. Some activities might otherwise be interrupted while implementing these revised procedures. In addition, grantees might not otherwise be able to use CDBG funds for planning and administrative costs of administering their programs. In order to address communities' needs and to ensure that programs can continue without disturbance, this waiver will allow grantees to incur pre-award costs on a timetable comparable to that under which grantees have operated in past years. This waiver is available for use by any applicable CDBG grantee whose action plan submission is delayed past the normal submission date because of delayed enactment of FY 2016 appropriations for the Department. This waiver authority is only in effect until August 16, 2016.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4548.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 882.806(a)(2)(ii).

    Project/Activity: The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles requested a waiver of 24 CFR 882.806(a)(2)(ii) to allow more time to complete the rehabilitation of the Single Room Occupancy Marion Hotel located at 642 Crocker Street.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 882.806(a)(2)(ii) provides that the owner must complete the rehabilitation of the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (SRO) project and the contract executed within 12 months of the execution of the Annual Contributions Contract.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistance Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: February 19, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles had two potential developers that backed out of the project for financial and other reasons. HUD determined that the new developer has a financially feasible project that would require at least 7 months to complete the project, which is beyond the time limitation of the execution of the Annual Contributions Contract.

    Contact: Norman Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5015.

    • Regulation: Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 Notice published on October 19, 2010, at 75 FR 64322 (II.H.3.F) in accordance with Title XII of Division A under the heading Community Planning and Development: Community Development Fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

    Project/Activity: Richland County, OH requested a waiver of the 10 percent demolition cap under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) which restricts grantees from spending more than 10 percent of total grant funds on demolition activities. The demolition waiver request combined Richland County's program income ($50,062.41) with an earlier approved demolition waiver of $420,050, that total $470,112.41.

    These funds will be used to demolish blighted and vacant structures that are becoming prevalent in Richland County, specifically in the City of Mansfield. The use of these funds in target areas will allow the county to remove hazards and the destabilizing influence of blighted properties, while adding value to the neighborhood stabilization strategy the county has undertaken. The ability to use program income for demolition activities will allow the county to close-out their NSP3 grant once these funds are exhausted.

    Nature of Requirement: Section II.H.3.F of the NSP3 Notice provides that a grantee may not use more than ten percent of its grant for demolition activities.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: March 25, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The use of these funds in target areas will allow Richland County to remove hazards and the destabilizing influence of blighted properties, while adding value to the neighborhood stabilization strategy the county has undertaken. The county's neighborhood stabilization strategy is in response to a depressed housing market that has seen Richland County incur 771 foreclosures in 2014, a twelve percent increase from the 684 foreclosures the county suffered in 2013. The ability to use program income for demolition activities will allow the county to close-out their NSP3 grant once these funds are exhausted.

    Contact: Jessie Handforth Kome, Deputy Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5539.

    • Regulation: Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 Notice published on October 19, 2010, at 75 FR 64322 (II.H.3.F) in accordance with Title XII of Division A under the heading Community Planning and Development: Community Development Fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

    Project/Activity: Saginaw, MI requested a waiver of the 10 percent demolition cap under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) which restricts grantees from spending more than 10 percent of total grant funds on demolition activities. The demolition waiver request submitted was for $97,614 or eight percent of its NSP3 allocation, and was for the continued demolition and removal of hazards and blighted properties.

    Nature of Requirement: Section II.H.3.F of the NSP3 Notice provides that a grantee may not use more than 10 percent of its grant for demolition activities.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: February 24, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The market conditions in the Saginaw metro area require a mix of demolition of unsafe structures coupled with the preservation of housing units to stabilize communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. The housing vacancy rate in the NSP target area fluctuates between eighteen to 35 percent as of early 2016, despite the fact that the unemployment rate in the immediate area has steadily improved. The use of the final $97,614 is the most effective means to meet the needs of the Saginaw community.

    Contact: Jessie Handforth Kome, Deputy Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5539.

    II. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Housing—Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: Woodland Christian Towers, FHA Project Number 114-44801T, Houston, Texas. Woodland Christian Towers, Incorporated (Owner) seeks approval to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan on the subject project.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b) (1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Properties, states “Assistance that has been paid to a project owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: February 1, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to repay the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan in full when it became due. Deferring the loan payment will preserve this affordable housing resource for an additional 30 years through the execution and recordation of a Rental Use Agreement.

    Contact: James Wyatt, Account Executive, Field Asset Management and Program Administration Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6172, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2519.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 203.41 and 24 CFR 206.45.

    Project/Activity: Properties eligible for FHA-insured mortgages.

    Nature of Requirement: The Amended and Restated Condominium Bylaws of the Waterway Pines condominium project contains restrictions on conveyance rendering this project, as provided in 24 CFR 203.41, ineligible for FHA approval. Additionally, any Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) secured by a dwelling subject to the covenants is ineligible, a provided in 24 CFR 206.45, for FHA insurance as HECM properties are required to be freely marketable and only permits a property to have a restriction on conveyance when permitted. The waiver is applicable to issuance of a case number for the property located at 367 Timberlake Drive E, Unit #125, Holland, Michigan 49424 only.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: February 29, 2016.

    Reason Waived: Due to extenuating circumstances, this waiver was issued so that the purchaser did not lose the opportunity to purchase an affordable housing unit based on the Association Board's reluctance to amend the legal documents to obtain FHA condominium project approval.

    Contact: Elissa O. Saunders, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9278, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2121.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.

    Project/Activity: Les Mason is a memory care facility. The facility does not meet the requirements of 24 CFR 232.7 “Bathroom” of FHA's regulations. The project is located in Crever Coeur, MO.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 232.7 mandates in a board and care home or assisted living facility that not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents. Also, the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: February 29, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 11: 1. The project meets the State of Missouri's licensing requirements for bathing and toileting facilities.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Operations Manager, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402-2419.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 266.638(b) and (d).

    Project/Activity: Louisiana Housing Corporation (LHC), New Orleans, Louisiana Project, St. Martin Manor Project Number: 064-98014, Project: Villa Additions, Project Number: 064-98017.

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at CFR 266.638(b) and (d) for debenture maturity and interest rate requirement is that the HFA Debenture shall, during the extended period, continue to bear interest as described below at HUD's published debenture rate at the earlier of initial endorsement or final endorsement. The HFA debenture extension shall bear interest at HUD's published debenture rate at the earlier of initial endorsement or final endorsement.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: March 30, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The waiver will ensure that LHC is able to complete the re-development of the two properties and replace needed affordable housing in New Orleans. The waiver is an extension of a previously granted waiver for the debenture interest accruals, and the Katrina related claims were related to an extraordinary natural disaster.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 266.100(a)(5).

    Project/Activity: Utah Housing Corporation (UHC), West Valley City, Utah.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 266.100(a)(5) requires housing finance agencies seeking participation in the Section 542(c) HFA Risk Sharing program to have at least 5 years of experience in multifamily underwriting.

    Granted by: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: March 30, 2016.

    Reason Waived: HUD determined that UHC is a qualified and experienced agency and meets the basic program qualifications and documented significant financial capacity to participate in the Risk Sharing Program. UHC's waiver approval and participating in the Risk Sharing Program are subject to the following conditions: (1) UHC participation will be limited to Level I (50/50) risk share only (UHC has the option to apply for level II risk share status once five years of successful underwriting has been achieved.); (2) UHC will confirm that it continues to hold an issuer rating of “A” or better from a national credit rating agency; (3) UHC will operate under a probationary period, until such time as it has obtained two Firm Commitments for two risk share transactions; and (4) UHC will work with the Denver Hub to complete a quality assurance review to ensure that UHC has complied with its own procedures for project underwriting.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.

    Project/Activity: Campbell Ridge Apartments, King, NC, Project Number: 053-HD255/NC19-Q101-004.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18-months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 36 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: January 7, 2016.

    Reason Waived: Additional time was needed for the office to update the firm commitment package.

    Contact: Alicia Anderson, Branch Chief, Grants and New Funding, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6138, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5787.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.

    Project/Activity: VOA Living Center of Lake City, Lake City, FL, Project Number: 063-HD030/FL29-Q101-004.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18-months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 36 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: February 28, 2016.

    Reason Waived: Additional time was needed for the office to review the initial closing package.

    Contact: Alicia Anderson, Branch Chief, Grants and New Funding, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6138, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5787.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.

    Project/Activity: Victoria at COMM22, San Diego, CA, Project Number: 129-EE036/CA33-S101-001.

    Nature of Requirement: Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18-months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 36 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: March 31, 2016.

    Reason Waived: Additional time was needed to meet other requirements of the State of California and the tax credit investor for receipt of their loans and capital contributions.

    Contact: Alicia Anderson, Branch Chief, Grants and New Funding, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6138, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5787.

    • Regulation: Waiver of Requirements of Mortgagee Letter 2011-22, Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide, Insurance Requirements.

    Project/Activity: Properties eligible for FHA-insured mortgages.

    Nature of Requirement: FHA's current insurance requirement is that a HOA maintain master master/blanket hazard and liability property insurance for the replacement cost of the entire project, including the structures.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: January 5, 2016.

    Reason Waived: In some circumstances, HOA legal governing documents assign the responsibility to the individual unit owner to obtain and maintain insurance coverage for certain condominium project types; Manufactured Housing Condominium Project (MHCP), Detached Condominium Housing Project (DCHP), and Common Interest Housing Development (CIHD). To assist in ensuring the continued availability of affordable housing, a waiver of the current condominium unit insurance requirements that allow the individual unit owner to obtain and maintain their own insurance coverage is required. The issuance of the waiver is consistent with the Department's objectives to expand access to mortgage credit, while providing appropriate safeguards to waive the insurance requirements.

    Contact: Elissa O. Saunders, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9278, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2121.

    III. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(c)(1) and (d)(1).

    Project/Activity: Haverhill Housing Authority (MA087).

    Nature of Requirement: The regulations establish certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 23, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The HA is a Section 8 only entity with the Housing Choice Program, requesting additional time to submit its audited financial data for fiscal year end (FYE) March 31, 2015. The agency's fee accountant was unable to complete a scheduled merger with an auditing firm in time enough to perform and submit the audited information. The HA has until March 31, 2016, to complete and submit its audited financial data to the Department. The additional time would allow the auditor necessary time to compile and complete the agency's audited financial data report.

    This FASS audited financial submission waiver (extension) does not apply to Single Audit submissions to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and the HA is required to meet the Single Audit due dates.

    Contact: Dee Ann R. Walker, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Room 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7908.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(c)(1) and (d)(1).

    Project/Activity: Mohave County Housing Authority (AZ043).

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: March 7, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The (HA is a Section 8 only entity requesting additional time to submit its audited financial data for its fiscal year end (FYE) of June 30, 2015. The County-wide report for the state of Arizona's Office of the Auditor General had been delayed due to incomplete information of pension financial liability; the HA is requesting a 60-day extension to align with the state's audited financial report. The HA has until May 31, 2016, to complete and submit its audited financial data to HUD. The additional time would allow the auditor necessary time to compile and complete the agency's audited financial data report.

    This FASS audited financial submission waiver (extension) does not apply to Single Audit submissions to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and the HA is required to meet the Single Audit due dates.

    Contact: Dee Ann R. Walker, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Room 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7908.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(c)(1) and (d)(1).

    Project/Activity: Tallahassee Housing Authority (FL073).

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: March 25, 2016.

    Reason Waived: The HA is requesting an additional time to submit its audited financial data for its fiscal year end (FYE) of June 30, 2015. The HAs cash balances for FY 2014 and FY 2015 were not reconciled as a result of converting to a new accounting system and a new software system. Also, the cash transactions were posted to incorrect funds and charged to incorrect bank accounts which rendered the HA's records unreliable resulting in the HA's auditor issuing a Disclaimer of opinion for FYE June 30, 2014, audited financial statements, and issued an adverse opinion on the Major Federal Program Compliance for the Housing Choice Vouchers program and the Mainstream Vouchers program. In addition, the Finance Supervisor was fired as a result of fraud allegations and the Finance Director resigned. The HA has until May 31, 2016, to complete and submit its audited financial data to HUD. The additional time would allow the auditor necessary time to compile and complete the agency's audited financial data report. This FASS audited financial submission waiver (extension) does not apply to Single Audit submissions to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and the HA is required to meet the Single Audit due dates.

    Contact: Dee Ann R. Walker, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Room 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7908.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and (c)(2).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) in Los Angeles, California, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and 982.503(c)(2) so that it could establish different payment standard amounts for its HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) participants.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) states that the public housing agency's (PHA) voucher payment standard schedule shall establish a single payment standard amount for each unit size. For each unit size, the PHA may establish a single payment standard amount for the whole fair market rent (FMR) area, or may establish a separate payment standard amount for each designated part of the FMR area. The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2) states that the HUD Field Office may approve an exception payment standard amount from 110 percent of the published FMR to 120 percent of the published FMR if the Field Office determines that approval is justified by either the median rent method or the 40th or 50th percentile rent method and that such approval is also supported by an appropriate program justification.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: January 28, 2016.

    Reason Waived: HACLA wished to establish a different payment standard schedule for participants in its HUD-VASH program because these families are traditionally more difficult to house when affordable housing is in short supply.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and (c)(2).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA) in Alhambra, California, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and 982.503(c)(2) so that it could establish different payment standard amounts for its HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) participants.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) states that the public housing agency's (PHA) voucher payment standard schedule shall establish a single payment standard amount for each unit size. For each unit size, the PHA may establish a single payment standard amount for the whole fair market rent (FMR) area, or may establish a separate payment standard amount for each designated part of the FMR area. The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2) states that the HUD Field Office may approve an exception payment standard amount from 110 percent of the published FMR to 120 percent of the published FMR if the Field Office determines that approval is justified by either the median rent method or the 40th or 50th percentile rent method and that such approval is also supported by an appropriate program justification.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 5, 2016.

    Reason Waived: HACoLA wished to establish a different payment standard schedule for participants in its HUD-VASH program because these families are traditionally more difficult to house when affordable housing is in short supply.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and (c)(2).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of the City of Santa Rosa in Santa Rosa (HACSR), California, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and 982.503(c)(2) so that it could establish different payment standard amounts for its HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) participants.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) states that the public housing agency's (PHA) voucher payment standard schedule shall establish a single payment standard amount for each unit size. For each unit size, the PHA may establish a single payment standard amount for the whole fair market rent (FMR) area, or may establish a separate payment standard amount for each designated part of the FMR area. The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2) states that the HUD Field Office may approve an exception payment standard amount from 110 percent of the published FMR to 120 percent of the published FMR if the Field Office determines that approval is justified by either the median rent method or the 40th or 50th percentile rent method and that such approval is also supported by an appropriate program justification.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 10, 2016.

    Reason Waived: HACSR wished to establish a different payment standard schedule for participants in its HUD-VASH program because these families are traditionally more difficult to house when affordable housing is in short supply.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(c), (c)(4)(ii) and (c)(5).

    Project/Activity: Burleigh County Housing Authority (BCHA) in Bismarck, North Dakota, requested waivers of 24 CFR 982.503(c), (c)(4)(ii) and (c)(5) so that it could establish exception payment standards at 120 percent of the FMRs due to oil exploration's effect on housing.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c) establishes the methodology for establishing exception payment standards for an area. The regulation at 24 CFR 503(c)(4)(ii) states that HUD will only approve an exception payment standard amount after six months from the date of HUD approval of an exception payment standard amount above 110 percent to 120 percent of the published fair market rent (FMR). The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(5) states that the total population of a HUD-approved exception areas in an FMR area may not include more than 50 percent of the population of the FMR area.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 26, 2016.

    Reason Waived: These waivers were granted because of increased economic activity and lack of affordable housing due to natural resource exploration.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) in Hayward California, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: January 7, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: New York Homes and Community Renewal (NYHCR), in New York, New York requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: January 7, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Peninsula Housing Authority (PHA) in Port Angeles, Washington, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 3, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Howard County Housing (HCH) in Columbia, Maryland, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 5, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Boston Housing Authority (BHA) in Boston, Massachusetts, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 26, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Dedham Housing Authority (DHA) in Dedham, Massachusetts, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 26, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Medford Housing Authority (MHA) in Medford, Massachusetts, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: March 23, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Colorado Division of Housing (CDH) in Denver, Colorado, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 982.505(d) so that it could approve an exception payment standard amount above 120 percent of the FMR as a reasonable accommodation.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is no more than 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: March 30, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This regulation was waived as a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled participant to receive housing assistance and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Deerfield Beach Housing Authority (DBHA) in Deerfield Beach, Florida, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 985.101(a) so that it could submit its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification after the deadline.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required SEMAP certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: February 24, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted because for the DBHA's fiscal year ending September 30, 2015. The waiver was approved because of circumstances beyond the PHA's control and to prevent additional administrative burdens for the PHA and field office.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Lake County Housing Authority (LCHA) in Grayslake, Illinois, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 985.101(a) so that it could submit its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification after the deadline.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required SEMAP certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: March 3, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted because for the LCHA's fiscal year ending September 30, 2015. The waiver was approved because of circumstances beyond the PHA's control and to prevent additional administrative burdens for the PHA and field office.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County (HCSALC) in Eugene, Oregon, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 985.101(a) so that it could submit its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification after the deadline.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required SEMAP certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing

    Date Granted: March 7, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted for the HCSALC's fiscal year ending September 30, 2015. The waiver was approved because of circumstances beyond the PHA's control and to prevent additional administrative burdens for the PHA and field office.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Sedalia Housing Authority (SHA) in Sedalia, Missouri, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 985.101(a) so that it could submit its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification after the deadline.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required SEMAP certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: March 29, 2016.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted because for the SHA's fiscal year ending December 31, 2015. The waiver was approved because of circumstances beyond the PHA's control and to prevent additional administrative burdens for the PHA and field office.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 905.314.

    Project/Activity: The Chester Housing Authority (CHA) requested a good cause waiver to transfer 33 percent of its 2016 Capital Fund Formula Grant into BLI 1406-Operations, in part to fund certain anticrime measures.

    Nature of Requirement: In accordance with 24 CFR 905.314, PHAs may use Operating Funds for anticrime and antidrug activities, including costs of providing adequate security for public housing residents, including above-baseline service agreements.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 22, 2016.

    Reason Waived: CHA's letter of March 2016 included all the information provided by the Capital Fund Processing Guidance to make a good cause determination. Specifically, CHA requested $628,435.00 to be transferred to Budget Line Item 1406 for Operations. CHA provided recent crime data at the developments and indicated the specific activities that it plans to use the funds for.

    Contact: Dominique Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20140, telephone (202) 402-4181.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 905.314.

    Project/Activity: The Westmoreland County Housing Authority (WCHA) requested a good cause waiver to transfer 27 percent of its 2016 Capital Fund Formula Grant into BLI 1406-Operations, in part to fund certain anticrime measures.

    Nature of Requirement: In accordance 24 CFR 905.314, PHAs may use Operating Funds for anticrime and antidrug activities, including costs of providing adequate security for public housing residents, including above-baseline service agreements.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 29, 2016.

    Reason Waived: WCHA's letter of March 2016 included all the information provided by the Capital Fund Processing Guidance to make a good cause determination. Specifically, WCHA requested $550,086 to be transferred to Budget Line Item 1406 for Operations. WCHA provided recent crime data at the developments and indicated the specific activities that it plans to use the funds for.

    Contact: Dominique Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20140, telephone (202) 402-4181.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13699 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FW-HQ-IA-2016-N098; FXIA16710900000-167-FF09A30000] Proposed Information Collection; Import of Sport-Hunted African Elephant Trophies AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0164” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this IC, contact Hope Grey at [email protected] (email) or 703-358-2482 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    On June 6, 2016, we published a final rule (81 FR 36388), Revision of the Section 4(d) Rule for the African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) (4(d) rule). The rule will be effective on July 6, 2016. After that date, permits will be required to import all African elephant trophies (i.e., from both Appendix-I and Appendix-II populations).

    When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives discretion to the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations that he or she “deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species.” In response to an unprecedented increase in poaching of elephants across Africa and the escalation of the illegal trade in ivory, we reevaluated the provisions of the existing ESA 4(d) rule for the African elephant. We revised the 4(d) rule by adopting measures that are necessary and advisable for the current conservation needs of the species, based on our evaluation of the current threats to the African elephant and the comments received from the public. The poaching crisis is driven by demand for elephant ivory. The final rule allows us to more strictly regulate trade in African elephant ivory and to help ensure that the U.S. ivory market is not contributing to the poaching of elephants in Africa.

    Currently, import of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix-II populations does not require an ESA threatened species import permit. Applications for permits required under current regulations (for import of African elephant sport-hunted trophies from CITES Appendix-I populations) are approved under OMB Control Number 1018-0093, which expires May 31, 2017. Under the revised rule, permits will be required to import all African elephant sport-hunted trophies from both Appendix-I and Appendix-II populations. As a result of the revised 4(d) rule, we expect to receive an additional 300 applications for permits. The burden associated with these additional applications is the basis of this information collection.

    We requested that OMB approve, on an emergency basis, our request to collect information associated with permits to import African elephant sport-hunted trophies from Appendix-II populations. We asked for emergency approval because of the potential negative effects of delaying publication of the final 4(d) rule. OMB approved our request and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0164, which expires November 30, 2016.

    We will ask OMB to grant regular approval (3 years) for this information collection. If OMB grants regular approval, we will include the burden associated with the expected 300 additional applications in OMB Control Number 1018-0093 when we renew the approval in May 2017.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0164.

    Title: Import of Sport-Hunted African Elephant Trophies, 50 CFR 17.

    Service Form Number: 3-200-19.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion time per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Total annual burden hours
    3-200-9—application to import African elephant trophy from Appendix-II populations 300 300 20 100 Totals 300 300 100

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $30,000, primarily associated with application fees. Application fee is $100 per application.

    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: June 6, 2016. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13678 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Bureau of Indian Education Advisory Board for Exceptional Children AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) requests nominations of individuals to serve on the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children (Advisory Board). There are three positions available. The BIE will consider nominations received in response to this request for nominations, as well as other sources.

    DATES:

    Please submit nominations by July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit nominations to Ms. Sue Bement, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Bureau of Indian Education, Division of Performance and Accountability, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, telephone 505-563-5274, or fax to 505-563-5281.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Ms. Sue Bement, DFO, at the above listed address and telephone number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Advisory Board was established in accordance with FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(b). The following provides information about the Committee, the membership, and the nomination process.

    1. Objective and Duties

    (a) Members of the Advisory Board will provide guidance, advice, and recommendations with respect to special education and related services for children with disabilities in BIE-funded schools in accordance with the requirements of IDEA.

    (b) The Advisory Board will:

    (1) Provide advice and recommendations for the coordination of services within the BIE and with other local, State, and Federal agencies;

    (2) Provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues dealing with the provision of educational services to American Indian children with disabilities;

    (3) Serve as advocates for American Indian students with special education needs by providing advice and recommendations regarding best practices, effective program coordination strategies, and recommendations for improved educational programming;

    (4) Provide advice and recommendations for the preparation of information required to be submitted to the Secretary of Education under 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(2);

    (5) Provide advice and recommend policies concerning effective inter- and intra- agency collaboration, including modifications to regulations, and the elimination of barriers to inter- and intra- agency programs and activities; and

    (6) Report and direct all correspondence to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs through the Director, BIE with a courtesy copy to the DFO.

    2. Membership

    (a) Under 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(6), the Advisory Board will be composed of up to 15 individuals involved in or concerned with the education and provision of services to Indian infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. The Advisory Board composition will reflect a broad range of viewpoints and will include at least one member representing each of the following interests: Indians with disabilities; teachers of children with disabilities; Indian parents or guardians of children with disabilities; service providers; State education officials; local education officials; State interagency coordinating councils (for States having Indian reservations); Tribal representatives or Tribal organization representatives; and other members representing the various divisions and entities of the BIE.

    (b) The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs may provide the Secretary of the Interior recommendations for the chairperson; however, the chairperson and other Advisory Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Advisory Board members shall serve staggered terms of two years or three years from the date of their appointment.

    3. Miscellaneous

    (a) Members of the Advisory Board will not receive compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel, including subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government Service under 5 U.S.C. 5703.

    (b) A member may not participate in matters that will directly affect, or appear to affect, the financial interests of the member or the member's spouse or minor children, unless authorized by the appropriate ethics official. Compensation from employment does not constitute a financial interest of the member so long as the matter before the committee will not have a special or distinct effect on the member or the member's employer, other than as part of a class. The provisions of this paragraph do not affect any other statutory or regulatory ethical obligations to which a member may be subject.

    (c) The Advisory Board meets at least twice per year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs or the DFO.

    (d) All Advisory Board meetings are open to the public in accordance with FACA regulations.

    4. Nomination Information

    (a) Nominations are requested from individuals, organizations, and federally recognized Tribes, as well as from State Directors of Special Education (within the 23 states in which BIE-funded schools are located) concerned with the education of Indian children with disabilities as described above.

    (b) Nominees should have expertise and knowledge of the issues and/or needs of American Indian children with disabilities. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to the BIE regarding the needs of American Indian children with disabilities.

    (c) Nominees must have the ability to attend Advisory Board meetings, carry out Advisory Board assignments, participate in teleconference calls, and work in groups.

    (d) The Department of the Interior is committed to equal opportunities in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership, which is bound by the Indian Preference Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 472).

    5. Basis for Nominations

    If you wish to nominate someone for appointment to the Advisory Board, please do not make the nomination until the person has agreed to have his or her name submitted to the BIE for this purpose.

    6. Nomination Application

    Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Committee and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member. The nomination application, which can be found on the BIE Web site at http://www.bie.edu/Programs/SpecialEd/AdvisoryBoard/index.htm, must also be included.

    7. Information Collection

    This collection of information is authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0179, “Solicitation of Nominations for the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children.”

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13694 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCO956000 L14400000.BJ0000 16X] Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing of plats of survey; Colorado.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially file the survey plats listed below and afford a proper period of time to protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the plats will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.

    DATES:

    Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plats described in this notice will happen on July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239-3856.

    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 40 North, Range 11 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on March 30, 2016.

    The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 41 North, Range 11 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on March 30, 2016.

    The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 18 South, Range 70 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on April 18, 2016.

    The plat, in 2 sheets, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 16 in Township 4 North, Range 71 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on May 13, 2016.

    The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 36 North, Range 17 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on May 23, 2016.

    The field notes of the remonumentation of certain original corners in Township 27 South, Range 47 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on May 27, 2016.

    Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13660 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCO956000 L14400000.BJ0000 16X] Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado.

    SUMMARY:

    On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office, published a Notice of Stay of Filing of Plat, in the Federal Register (74 FR 34035) to inform the public of a stay on the proposed filing of the dependent resurvey of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines in Township 42 North, Range 13 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, accepted on December 22, 2008, pending consideration of the protest and/or appeal that was filed. On May 27, 2016, the Interior Board of Land Appeals affirmed the BLM's decision to dismiss the protest. The BLM Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially file the survey plat listed above and afford a proper period of time to protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the plat will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.

    DATES:

    Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plat described in this notice will happen on July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239-3856.

    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13659 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCON06000-L16100000-DQ0000 16X] Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meetings for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conserv ation Area Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) Advisory Council (Council) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Council will meet July 13, 2016, and July 27, 2016. Any adjustments to these meetings will be advertised on the Dominguez-Escalante NCA Resource Management Plan (RMP) Web site: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/nca/denca/denca_rmp.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    The July 13 meeting will be held at the Mesa County Old Courthouse, 544 Rood Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81501. The July 27 meeting will be held at the Bill Heddles Recreation Center, 530 Gunnison River Drive, Delta, CO 81416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Collin Ewing, Dominguez-Escalante NCA Advisory Council Designated Federal Official, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Phone: (970) 244-3049. Email: [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the RMP process for the Dominguez-Escalante NCA and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness.

    Topics of discussion during the meetings may include presentations from BLM staff on management actions contained in the RMP, particularly public comments on alternatives in the Draft RMP.

    These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Time will be allocated at the middle and end of each meeting to hear public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited at the discretion of the chair.

    Ruth Welch, BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13658 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1004] Certain Mobile and Portable Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and Laptops) and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 5, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, on behalf of Immersion Corporation of San Jose, California. Supplements to the complaint were filed on May 9, May 16, and May 24, 2016. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile and portable electronic devices incorporating haptics (including smartphones and laptops) and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (“the '507 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,808,488 (“the '488 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 (“the '260 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,581,710 (“the '710 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR § 210.10 (2016).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on June 3, 2016, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile and portable electronic devices incorporating haptics (including smartphones and laptops) and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 of the '507 patent; claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, 18, 25-27, and 29 of the '488 patent; claims 1 and 2 of the '260 patent; and claims 1, 7-10, and 12 of the '710 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR § 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: Immersion Corporation, 50 Rio Robles, San Jose, CA 95134.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014 AT&T Mobility LLC, 1025 Lenox Park Boulevard NE., Atlanta, GA 30319.

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    The Chief Administrative Law Judge is authorized to consolidate Inv. No. 337-TA-990 and this investigation if he deems it appropriate.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR § 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR §§ 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 6, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13671 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—fd.io Project, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 4, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), fd.io Project, Inc. (“fd.io”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, OR; Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Inocybe Technologies Inc., Gatineau, Quebec City, CANADA; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Cisco Systems, Inc., Milpitas, CA; PLUMgrid, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; NXP Semiconductor Inc. (Freescale), Austin, TX; Mesosphere Inc., San Francisco, CA; Metaswitch Networks, San Francisco, CA; Cavium Networks, Inc., San Jose, CA; Ericsson, Kista, SWEDEN; Comcast, Philadelphia, PA; Red Hat, Inc., Raleigh, NC; and 6 WIND, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, FRANCE.

    The general area of fd.io's planned activity are to: (a) Drive the evolution of IO services (IO, processing, and management agents for networking, storage, and other types of IO) through a neutral community delivering open source software that supports deployment models including cloud, NFV, container, bare metal networking, storage, and other types of IO, in order to create a high performance, modular, and extensible open source platform fostering innovation in IO services (“the Platform”); (b) host a collection of projects that form a cohesive code base for open community based development, enhanced component compatibility and interoperability, greater choice and flexibility for data plane developers, and an open environment for IO services development and technology adoption; (c) support and maintain the strategic framework of the Platform through the technologies made available by the organization to make the Platform a success; (d) support and maintain policies set by the Board of Directors of the Joint Venture; (e) promote such Platform worldwide; (f) create and maintain programs regarding the use of Joint Venture trademarks; and (g) undertake such other activities as may from time to time be appropriate to further the purposes and achieve the goals set forth above.

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13629 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Cooperative Research Group on Development and Validation of FlawPRO for Assessing Defect Tolerance of Welded Pipes Under Generalized High Strain Conditions

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 27, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on Development and Validation of FlawPRO for Assessing Defect Tolerance of Welded Pipes Under Generalized High Strain Conditions (“FlawPRO-JIP”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ConocoPhillips Company, Houston, TX, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and FlawPRO-JIP intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On May 17, 2011, FlawPRO-JIP filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39901).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 2, 2012. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73676).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13633 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—UHD Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 11, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), UHD Alliance, Inc. (“UHD Alliance”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA; Tongfang Global, Ltd. (Seiki), Diamond Bar, CA; Arcelik AS Electronics Plant, Istanbul, TURKEY; Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX; and Paramount Pictures Corporation, Hollywood, CA, have been added as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42537).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 12, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 17, 2016 (81 FR 14485).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13632 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc. (“Si2”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, MIE Fujitsu Semiconductor, Limited, Yokohama City, JAPAN; IC Manage, Inc., Campbell, CA; SA Magillem Design Services, Paris, FRANCE; Minalogic, Grenoble, FRANCE; Ricoh Electronic Devices Company, Limited, Osaka, JAPAN; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Guilford, CT; and Broadcom, Ltd., San Jose, CA, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, AIST, Tokyo, JAPAN; ARM, Cambridge, MA; Berkeley Wireless Research Center, Berkley, CA; Blackcomb Design Automation, Inc. Vancouver, CANADA; IMEC, Heverlee, BELGIUM, Qorvo, Richardson, TX, Sage Design Automation, Santa Clara, CA; SiConTech, Inc., Austin, TX; STARC, Tokohama, JAPAN; Tyndall National Institute, Cork City, IRELAND; United Microelectronics Corporation, Hsinchu City, TAIWAN; Altera, San Jose, CA; Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA; and Avago Technologies, Ltd., San Jose, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Si2 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On December 30, 1988, Si2 filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10456).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 28, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 16, 2015 (80 FR 70837).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13634 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—AllSeen Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), AllSeen Alliance, Inc. (“AllSeen Alliance”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Microfactory, Inc. (FirstBuild), Louisville, KY; Smartlabs, Inc., Irvine, CA; M2Communication Inc., Hsinchu County, TAIWAN; MobilityLab LLC, Moscow, RUSSIA; Organic Response Pty Ltd. (Organic Response), Richmond, Victoria, AUSTRALIA; dog hunter LLC, Boston, MA; Shenzhen Fenglian Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Shenzhen H&T Home Online Network Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Blackloud, Inc., Irvine, CA; wot.io, New York, NY; iiNet Limited, Subiaco, Perth, AUSTRALIA; Universal Devices, Inc., Encino, CA; Trend Micro Incorporated, Taipei, TAIWAN; CoCo Communications, Seattle, WA; Dropbeats Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and Netbeast, Munchen, Deutschland, GERMANY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AllSeen Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On January 29, 2014, AllSeen Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12223).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 23, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 15123).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13627 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 4, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (“iNEMI”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA; CoreTech System Co., Ltd., Hsinchu, TAIWAN; INSIDIX, Seussins, FRANCE; Interflux Electronics nv, Gent-Desteldonk, Belgium; US Conec, Hickory, NC; Foresite, Inc., Kokomo, IN; SuZhou Eunow Co., Ltd., Suzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Takaoka Toko Co., Ltd. Shizuoka, JAPAN; University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA; and Shinko Electric America, Inc., San Jose, CA, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Palo Alto, CA; Griffith University, Nathan, AUSTRALIA; Cisco Systems Inc., San Jose, CA; Teradyne, Inc., North Reading, MA; and Speedline, Franklin, MA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and iNEMI intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On June 6, 1996, iNEMI filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 28, 1996 (61 FR 33774).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 23, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 27, 2015 (80 FR 30269).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13626 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—TeleManagement Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 25, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), TeleManagement Forum (“The Forum”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the following parties have been added as members to this venture: TWI, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; DataProbity, Stuart, FL; Hangzhou Eastcom Software Technology Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Multinational Alliance for Collaborative Cyber Situational Awareness (MACCSA), Shrewton, UNITED KINGDOM; MÜNCHNER KREIS, München, GERMANY; triPica, Paris, FRANCE; Teltech Communications LLC, Dallas, TX; AZR L.L.C., Tripoli, LIBYA; Pervazive, Bengaluru, INDIA; Vodacom (Pty) Ltd., Midrand, SOUTH AFRICA; Fornax ICT Kft., Budapest, HUNGARY; Pryv, Lausanne, SWITZERLAND; Knowesis Pte Ltd., Singapore, SINGAPORE; Cloud Best Practices Network, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Active Minds, Belfast, UNITED KINGDOM; bit2win, Rome, ITALY; Cardinality, Ealing, UNITED KINGDOM; Readiness IT Systems Integration, S.A., Matosinhos, PORTUGAL; Guangzhou Highjet Technology Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; DataMi, Chelmsford, MA; Ebistrategy Software (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Elephant Talk Communications, New York, NY; Premavals, Noisy-le-Grand, FRANCE; Eir, Dublin, IRELAND; Coeos Assurances, Paris, FRANCE; SigScale Global Inc., Colombo, SRI LANKA; AVSystem, Kraków, POLAND; NetYCE, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Hortonworks, Inc., Santa Clara, CANADA; Stream Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM; CRM.COM Software Ltd., Nicosia, CYPRUS; Elite Business, Tunis, TUNISIA; 3Consulting, Lagos, NIGERIA; VMware, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Linkem Spa, Rome, ITALY; Zeotap GmbH, Berlin, GERMANY; Blueline, Antananarivo, MADAGASCAR; Sri Lanka Telecom PLC, Colombo, SRI LANKA; Innowave Technologies, Lisbon, PORTUGAL; Swiss Post Ltd, Berne, SWITZERLAND; Ooredoo Tunis, Tunis, TUNISIA; Indosat Ooredoo, Jakarta, INDONESIA; Wataniya Palestine, Al Bireh, PALESTINIAN TERRITORY; Ooredoo Qatar, Doha, QATAR; Ooredoo Oman, Muscat, OMAN; Ooredoo Maldives Pvt. Ltd., Hulhumale, MALDIVES; Ooredoo Myanmar, Jakarta, INDONESIA; Ooredoo Kuwait, Plot 1A, Sharq Area, KUWAIT; Ooredoo Algeria, Alger, ALGERIA; AsiaCell Communications LLC, Sulaimaniyah, IRAQ; Michi Creative City Designers Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; ZAA Architects, Montréal, CANADA; Canoe Ventures, Englewood, CO; Dorado Software, Folsom, CA; Waterfront Toronto, Toronto, CANADA; and Carlo Ratti Associati, Torino, ITALY.

    Also, the following members have changed their names: PT Affia Andal Jasa Bismatamma (RSM AAJ ASSOCIATES) to PT RSM Indonesia Konsultan (RSM Indonesia), Jakarta, INDONESIA; NTS New Technology Systems GmbH to NTS Retail, Wilhering, AUSTRIA; AS Eesti Telekom to Telia Eesti AS, Tallinn, ESTONIA; Fornax Informatika to Fornax ICT Kft., Budapest, HUNGARY; Prodapt to Prodapt North America, Inc., Tualatin, OR; Knowesis Technology to Knowesis Pte Ltd, Singapore, SINGAPORE; and Citizen Telecom Services Company L.L.C. d/b/a Frontier Communications to Citizen Telecom Services Company L.L.C., Rochester, NY.

    In addition, the following members have withdrawn as parties to this venture: AetherPal, South Plainfield, NJ; Almadar Aljadid, Tripoli, LIBYA; Applied Network Solutions, Inc., Columbia, MD; ARTIN Solutions, Bratislava, SLOVAKIA; BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Bank of America, New York, NY; beCloud, Minsk, BELARUS; Bobbil, Cork, IRELAND; BrandedIPTV, Hong Kong, HONG-KONG CHINA; Bright Computing BV, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Broadband Infraco (SOC) Ltd, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA; BTC Networks, Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA; Business-intelligence of Oriental Nations Corporation Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Calix, Inc., Petaluma, CA; Cignium Technologies, Fort Lee, NJ; Cleartech, Barueri, BRAZIL; Ernst & Young, S.A. Costa Rica, San José, COSTA RICA; Eyelbe Ltd., Malmesbury, UNITED KINGDOM; Factdelta, Swansea, UNITED KINGDOM; GENBAND, Frisco, TX; i2i Bilisim Ve Teknoloji Danismanlik Tic Ltd., Kocaeli, TURKEY; ICCE Systems, Cary, NC; iiNet Limited, Subiaco, AUSTRALIA; InfoCumulus, Zagreb, CROATIA; Infopact Netwerkdiensten B.V., Hoogvliet, NETHERLANDS; Innovise ESM Ltd., Slough, UNITED KINGDOM; Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad ICE, San Jose, COSTA RICA; Iprotel Limited, Reading, UNITED KINGDOM; Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, CA; Kwezi Software Solutions, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA; Maksen Consulting, S.A., Lisbon, PORTUGAL; metaWEAVE, Centurion, SOUTH AFRICA; Mformation Software Technologies, Edison, NJ; Mobius Wireless Solutions Ltd., Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; moreCom AS, Halden, NORWAY; Mozambique Cellular SARL (mcel), Maputo, MOZAMBIQUE; Neotel (Proprietary) Ltd., Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA; NETvisor, Budapest, HUNGARY; Neural Technologies, Petersfield, UNITED KINGDOM; Neurocom SA, Athens, GREECE; NISCERT Corporation, Toronto, CANADA; N-Pulse GmbH, Heppenheim, GERMANY; Ogilvy, London, UNITED KINGDOM; one2tribe Sp. z o.o., Michalowice, POLAND; Onesto Services Oy, Jyvaskyla, FINLAND; Openet, Dublin, IRELAND; ParStream, Redwood City, CA; Ranck Consulting, Chevy Chase, MD; Simply Execute, Uerikon, SWITZERLAND; Softera Oy, Helsinki, FINLAND; Svarog Technology Group Inc., Half Moon Bay, CA; Tarantula, Slough, UNITED KINGDOM; TE Data, Dokki, EGYPT; Telecom Egypt, Giza, EGYPT; Telefonica Global Technology SA, Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA; Vertek Corporation, Colchester, VT; Visa, San Francisco, CA; Vox Telecom, Waverley, SOUTH AFRICA; and Worldstream Systems & Services, Ebene Cybercity, MAURITIUS.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and the Forum intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On October 21, 1988, the Forum filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 8, 1988 (53 FR 49615).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 29, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 9, 2016 (81 FR 12527).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13625 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—DVD Copy Control Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Dongguan Team Force Electronic Co., Ltd., Dongguan, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to this venture.

    Also, 3A Media Co. Ltd., Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Apollo Electronics Group Limited, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon, HONG KONG-CHINA; Bestdisc Technology Corporation, Kee-Lung, TAIWAN; CMC Magnetics Corporation, Taipei, TAIWAN; CSR Technology, Inc., Sunnyville, CA; digiCon AG, Kornwestheim, GERMANY; Fuhrmeister Electronics Co., Ltd., Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications, Dongguan, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Hitachi High-Technologies Taiwan Corporation, Taipei, TAIWAN; Malata Group (HK) Limited, North Point, Hong Kong, HONG KONG-CHINA; Nagravision SA., Cheseau-sur-Lausanne, SWITZERLAND; Quatius Limited TST East, Hong Kong, HONG KONG-CHINA; Shanghai United Optical Disc Co., Ltd., Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Starlight Video Limited, Hong Kong, HONG KONG-CHINA; Tamul Multimedia Co., Ltd., AnYang-City, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; The Video Duplicating Co. Ltd., Middlesex, UNITED KINGDOM; Yu Cha (Hong Kong) Electronics, Co., Ltd., Tsuen Wan N.T., Hong Kong, HONG KONG-CHINA; and Zhong Shan City Litai Electronic Industrial Co. Ltd., Zhongshan City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 21, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58297).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13631 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Node.js Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 26, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Node.js Foundation has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, New Relic, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Opbeat, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Sphinx Co. Ltd., Hanoi, VIETNAM; Google Inc., Mountain View, CA; and Cars.com, Chicago, IL, have been added as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Node.js Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On August 17, 2015, Node.js Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58297).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 10, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 9, 2016 (81 FR 12524).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13628 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 28, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ELCOM, a.s., Ostrava-Pustkovec, CZECH REPUBLIC, has been added as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 39336).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on

    February 10, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 9, 2016 (81 FR 12526).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13630 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as Amended AGENCY:

    Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as Amended,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201605-1210-002 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as Amended information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 2520.102-2, 2520.102-3, 2520.104b-2, and 2520.104b3 that provide guidance on the content, frequency, and manner of certain disclosures the ERISA requires an employee benefit plan subject to the Act periodically to furnish plan participants and certain specified plan beneficiaries. A benefit plan uses summary plan descriptions, material modifications summaries, and material reductions summaries to make the disclosures. ERISA sections 102(b), 104(b)(1), and 109(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S. C. 1022(b), 1024(b)(1), and 1029(c).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1210-0039.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2016 (80 FR 72990).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1210-0039. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-EBSA.

    Title of Collection: Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as Amended.

    OMB Control Number: 1210-0039.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,981,000.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 108,466,000.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 279,000 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $172,736,000.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13642 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2016-151 and CP2016-191; Order No. 3349] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 225 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: June 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 225 to the competitive product list.1

    1 Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 225 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, June 3, 2016 (Request).

    The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.

    To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

    II. Notice of Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-151 and CP2016-191 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 225 product and the related contract, respectively.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than June 13, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints Natalie R. Ward to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-151 and CP2016-191 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Natalie R. Ward is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).

    3. Comments are due no later than June 13, 2016.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13675 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2016-150 and CP2016-190; Order No. 3348] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 224 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: June 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 224 to the competitive product list.1

    1 Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 224 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, June 3, 2016 (Request).

    The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.

    To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

    II. Notice of Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-150 and CP2016-190 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 224 product and the related contract, respectively.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than June 13, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints Natalie R. Ward to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-150 and CP2016-190 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Natalie R. Ward is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).

    3. Comments are due no later than June 13, 2016.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13674 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: June 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 3, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 224 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2016-150, CP2016-190.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13636 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: June 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 3, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 225 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2016-151, CP2016-191.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13637 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program (Railroad Retirement Board—Office of Personnel Management) AGENCY:

    Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a renewal of an existing computer-matching program that expires on July 1, 2016.

    DATES:

    This matching program will become effective July 19, 2016. The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months, if the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met, with an expiration date of January 1, 2019.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the RRB is issuing public notice of its renewal of an ongoing computer-matching program with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The purpose of this notice is to advise individuals applying for or receiving benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act of the use made by RRB of this information obtained from OPM by means of a computer match.

    We will file a report of this computer-matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Timothy Grant, Chief Privacy Officer, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092, telephone 312-751-4869 or email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. General

    The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, (Pub. L. 100-503), amended by the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a) as amended, requires a Federal agency participating in a computer matching program to publish a notice in the Federal Register for all matching programs.

    The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records contained in a Privacy Act System of Records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:

    (1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;

    (2) Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards (DIB) of the participating Federal agencies;

    (3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the Federal Register;

    (4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;

    (5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and

    (6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments. The last published notice for this matching program was November 27, 2013 (78 FR 70971).

    B. RRB Computer Matches Subject to the Privacy Act

    We have taken appropriate action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.

    Notice of Computer Matching Program, RRB With the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) A. Name of Participating Agencies

    OPM and RRB.

    B. Purpose of the Matching Program

    The purpose of the match is to enable the RRB to (1) identify affected RRB annuitants who are in receipt of a Federal public pension benefit but who have not reported receipt of this benefit to the RRB, and (2) receive timely and accurate Federal public pension benefit information for affected RRB annuitants.

    C. Authority for Conducting the Match

    Sections 3(a)(1), 4(a)(1) and 4(f)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C. 231b(a)(1), 231c(a)(1) and 231c(f)(1) require that the RRB reduce the Railroad Retirement benefits of certain beneficiaries entitled to Railroad Retirement employee and/or spouse/widow benefits who are also entitled to a government pension based on their own non-covered earnings. We call this reduction a Public Service Pension (PSP) offset.

    Section 224 of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 424a, provides for the reduction of disability benefits when the disabled worker is also entitled to a public disability benefit (PDB). We call this a PDB offset. A civil service disability benefit is considered a PDB. Section 224(h)(1) requires any Federal agency to provide RRB with information in its possession that RRB may require for the purposes of making a timely determination of the amount of reduction under section 224 of the Social Security Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b)(3) OPM has established routine uses to disclose the subject information to RRB.

    D. Categories of Individuals Covered

    Individuals receiving Federal public pensions or RRB annuities.

    E. Categories of Records Covered

    OPM will provide the RRB once a year via secure electronic file transfer, data extracted from its annuity and survivor master file of its Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records. Normally on December of each year, OPM transmits to us approximately 2.5 million electronic records for matching. The records contain these data elements: Name, Social Security number, date of birth, civil service claim number, first potential month and year of eligibility for civil service benefits, first month, day, year of entitlement to civil service benefits, amount of current gross civil service benefits, and effective date (month, day, year) of civil service amount, and where applicable, civil service disability indicator, civil service FICA covered month indicator, and civil service total service months. The RRB will match the Social Security number, name, and date of birth contained in the OPM file against approximately the 1.2 million records in our files. For records that match, the RRB will extract the civil service payment information.

    F. Systems of Records Covered

    The Privacy Act System of Records designation is OPM/Central-1, (Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records), Published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2011 (76 FR 32997). The RRB Privacy Act System of Records is RRB-22, Railroad Retirement, Survivor, and Pensioner Benefit System, published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2015 (80 FR 28018).

    Dated: June 6, 2016.

    By authority of the Board.

    Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13643 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77989; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule June 3, 2016.

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on June 1, 2016, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to offer a Technical Support Request Fee to both Members and Non-Members.

    The Exchange has an infrastructure comprised of low latency and ultra-low latency proximity solutions in several offsite data center locales offering universal access to all Exchange services via a single common connection across a variety of high speed network interfaces.

    The Exchange offers connectivity in and between its data center facilities and supports direct attachment of all network equipment or direct attached host systems of both Member and Non-Member users of the Exchange. Member and Non-Member users of the Exchange are strongly encouraged to establish connectivity to at least two data centers to minimize the possibility of service disruption.

    The Exchange proposes to add new Section (5)(f) to the Fee Schedule to establish a Member and Non-Member Technical Support Request Fee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge Members and Non-Members an hourly fee in the event that such Member or Non-Member requests the Exchange to use the Exchange's on-site data center personnel to provide technical support at any of the Exchange's data centers. The Exchange proposes to assess Members and Non-Members that request MIAX technical support at any of the MIAX data centers a fee of $200 per hour for such technical support.

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make the Exchange's on-site data center personnel available, for a fee, to Members and Non-Members when assisting with troubleshooting that requires a physical on-site presence.

    The proposed Technical Support Request fee is scheduled to become effective June 1, 2016.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 3 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 4 in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new service is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 5 in that it is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory, because it is available to all Members and Non-Members for the same fee. Moreover, the proposed fee is reasonable because other exchanges charge for similar services at their data centers.6

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    6See Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) Fees Schedule, p. 9. CBOE charges $100 per hour for technical support outside normal hours and for after-hours technician services with a four hour minimum required. See also NYSE Amex Options (“Amex”) Fee Schedule, Section V(B) and NYSE Arca Options (“Arca”) Fees and Charges, p. 18. Both Amex and Arca charge $100 per half hour for “Hot Hands Services,” which consists of allowing Amex and Arca Users to use Amex or Arca on-site data center personnel to maintain User equipment, support network troubleshooting, rack and stack, power recycling and install and document cable. See also NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”) Pricing Schedule, Section X(d). Phlx charges $150 per hour for “Remote Hands Service” and $250 per hour plus materials if necessary for “Power Consulting Services.”

    Additionally, Members and Non-Members are not required to use the service but instead it is offered as a convenience to all Members and Non-Members. The proposed fee is reasonably designed because it will permit both Members and Non-Members to request the use of the Exchange's on-site data center personnel as technical support and as a convenience that is equally available to them.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed enhancement of services by the Exchange provided to its Members and others using its facilities will not have an impact on competition. In fact, MIAX's proposed technical support services at a Member or Non-Member's request will benefit all who use such services. As stated above, other exchanges charge for similar services at their data centers.7 The Exchange's hourly rate for such services is within the range of prices for similar services offered by other exchanges, and therefore the Exchange believes that the proposed hourly rate for technical support does not impose a burden on competition.8

    7Id.

    8See id.

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because the hourly rate is competitive with the rates offered by other exchanges for similar services.9

    9See supra note 6.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 11 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-MIAX-2016-13 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-13. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-13, and should be submitted on or beforeJune 30, 2016 June 30, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13612 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77988; File No. SR-FICC-2016-001] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the GCF Repo® Service June 3, 2016.

    On April 19, 2016, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC” or the “Corporation”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2016-001 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.2 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016.3 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77675 (April 21, 2016), 81 FR 24922 (April 27, 2016) (SR-FICC-2016-001).

    I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FICC seeks the Commission's approval to amend the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook 4 (“GSD Rules”) in order to: (1) Permanently adopt the pilot program (the “2015 Pilot Program”) 5 that is currently in effect for the GCF Repo® 6 service and that is scheduled to expire on June 22, 2016; (2) add clarifying rule changes regarding a process that is currently in effect with respect to the GCF Repo service and that FICC refers to as the “net-of-net” settlement process; and (3) make technical changes to the GSD Rules. The proposed rule changes consist of changes to GSD Rule 1, GSD Rule 20, and the Schedule of GCF Timeframes.

    4 The GSD Rulebook is available at DTCC's Web site, www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.

    5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-75258 (June 22, 2015), 80 FR 36879 (June 26, 2015) (SR-FICC-2015-002).

    6 GCF Repo is a registered trademark of FICC/DTCC.

    A. The GCF Repo Service

    The GCF Repo service allows dealer members of FICC's Government Services Division to trade general collateral finance repos (“GCF Repos”) 7 throughout the day without requiring intraday, trade-for-trade settlement on a delivery-versus-payment 8 basis. The service allows dealers to trade GCF Repos, based on rate and term, with inter-dealer broker netting members on a blind basis. Standardized, generic CUSIP numbers have been established exclusively for GCF Repo processing, and are used to specify the type of underlying security that is eligible to serve as collateral for GCF Repos. Only Fedwire eligible, book-entry securities may serve as collateral for GCF Repos. Acceptable collateral for GCF Repos include most U.S. Treasury securities, non-mortgage-backed federal agency securities, fixed and adjustable rate mortgage-backed securities, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and separate trading of registered interest and principal securities.9

    7 A GCF Repo is one in which the lender of funds is willing to accept any of a class of U.S. Treasuries, U.S. government agency securities, and certain mortgage-backed securities as collateral for the repurchase obligation. This is in contrast to a specific collateral repo.

    8 Delivery-versus-payment is a settlement procedure in which the buyer's cash payment for the securities it has purchased is due at the time the securities are delivered.

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58696 (September 30, 2008), 73 FR 58698, 58699 (October 7, 2008) (SR-FICC-2008-04).

    B. Background of the Pilot Program

    Because FICC's GCF Repo service operates as a tri-party mechanism, FICC states that it was asked to alter the service to align it with the recommendations of the Tri-Party Repo Infrastructure Reform Task Force (“TPR”).10 FICC consequently developed a pilot program (“2011 Pilot Program”) to address the TPR's recommendations,11 and sought Commission approval to institute that program.12 The Commission approved the 2011 Pilot Program on August 29, 2011 for a period of one year.13 When the expiration date for the 2011 Pilot Program approached, FICC sought Commission approval to implement the 2012 Pilot Program, which continued the 2011 Pilot Program in some aspects, and modified it in others.14 The Commission approved the 2012 Pilot Program, as well as subsequent one-year extensions of the pilot program in 2013, 2014, and 2015 (respectively, the “2013 Pilot Program,” “2014 Pilot Program,” and “2015 Pilot Program”).15 The 2015 Pilot Program, as well its predecessors, the 2014, 2013, and 2012 Pilot Programs, have been the subject of a number of notices and approval orders published by the Commission.16 These notices and orders provide extensive detail on both the GCF Repo service and the pilot program itself.

    10 The TPR was an industry group formed and sponsored in 2009 by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to address weaknesses that emerged in the tri-party repo market during the financial crisis. The TPR's chief goal was to develop recommendations to address the risks presented by the reversal of tri-party repo transactions, and to develop procedures to ensure that tri-party repos would be collateralized throughout the day, rather than at the end of the day.

    11 The TPR issued preliminary and final reports setting forth its recommendations for the reform of the tri-party repo market. See Tri-Party Repo Infrastructure Reform Task Force Report of May 17, 2000, available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/prc/files/report_100517.pdf; see also Tri-Party Repo Infrastructure Reform Task Force Final Report (February 15, 2012), available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/tripartyrepo/pdf/report_120215.pdf.

    12 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-64955 (July 25, 2011), 76 FR 45638 (July 29, 2011) (SR-FICC-2011-05).

    13 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-65213 (August 29, 2011), 76 FR 54824 (September 2, 2011) (SR-FICC-2011-05).

    14 The 2012 Pilot Program implemented several changes which, although described in the rule filing that accompanied the 2011 Pilot Program, were not implemented during the 2011 Pilot Program's period of effectiveness. They include: (i) Moving the time for unwinding repos from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; (ii) moving the net-free-equity process from morning to the evening; and (iii) establishing rules for intraday GCF Repo collateral substitutions. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67227 (June 20, 2012), 77 FR 38108 (June 26, 2012) (SR-FICC-2012-05).

    15 Securities Exchange Release No. 34-67621 (August 8, 2012), 77 FR 48572 (August 14, 2012) (SR-FICC-2012-05); Securities Exchange Release No. 34-70068 (July 30, 2013), 78 FR 47453 (August 5, 2013) (SR-FICC-2013-06); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72457 (June 24, 2014), 79 FR 36856 (June 30, 2014) (SR-FICC-2014-02); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-75258 (June 22, 2015), 80 FR 36879 (June 26, 2015) (SR-FICC-2015-002).

    16See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 34-67227 (June 20, 2012), 77 FR 38108 (June 26, 2012) (SR-FICC-2012-05); 34-67621 (August 8, 2012), 77 FR 48572 (August 14, 2012) (SR-FICC-2012-05); 34-69774 (June 17, 2013), 78 FR 37631 (June 21, 2013) (SR-FICC-2013-06); 34-70068 (July 30, 2013), 78 FR 47453 (August 5, 2013) (SR-FICC-2013-06); 34-72184 (May 19, 2014), 79 FR 29828 (May 23, 2014) (SR-FICC-2014-02); 34-72457 (June 24, 2014), 79 FR 36856 (June 30, 2014) (SR-FICC-2014-02); 34-74973 (May 15, 2015), 80 FR 29352 (May 21, 2015) (SR-FICC-2015-002); and 34-75258 (June 22, 2015), 80 FR 36879 (June 26, 2015) (SR-FICC-2015-002).

    In proposed rule change SR-FICC-2016-001, FICC seeks the Commission's approval to permanently adopt the GSD Rules associated with the 2015 Pilot Program, which expires on June 22, 2016. In addition, FICC also seeks to add a clarification to the GSD Rules to reflect the net-of-net settlement process in the GCF Repo service. According to FICC, the net-of-net settlement clarification is also a result of Tri-Party Reform and reflects current practice at the GSD. FICC seeks to permanently adopt these changes rather than continually file annual extensions of the pilot program. The rule changes associated with the pilot have been in place since 2011 with certain additional modifications made in 2012, and FICC's members are accustomed to them. FICC states that this is also the case regarding the net-of-net settlement changes, which came into effect when the clearing banks implemented this process in 2014 and 2015. According to FICC, changes to the GSD Rules regarding the net-of-net settlement process require no operational changes on the part of FICC. However, FICC seeks to update the GSD Rules in an effort to ensure that the GSD Rules reflect the current net-of-net settlement process. According to FICC, any future changes that arise as a result of Tri-Party Reform will constitute stand-alone rule changes, and are not expected to affect the rule changes covered in this present filing. Finally, in addition to the above, FICC seeks to amend the GSD Rules to include non-substantive, technical changes for clarity.

    II. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act 17 directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 18 requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to achieve several goals, including (i) promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, (ii) assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and (iii) protecting investors and the public interest.

    17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).

    18 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act 19 and the rules thereunder applicable to FICC. The proposal will permanently adopt the rules in the 2015 Pilot Program, which were intended to advance the TPR's Tri-Party Reform recommendations by moving the morning unwind process to the afternoon to ensure that such transactions are collateralized all day and, therefore, limiting the amount of intraday credit that is extended by clearing banks during the day. Permanently adopting these rules will serve to minimize systemic risk and avoid the need for seeking future approvals of renewing the 2015 Pilot Program annually, thereby bringing certainty to market participants as to FICC's rules implementing the Tri-Party Reform recommendations. Accordingly, the permanent adoption of the 2015 Pilot Program rules should help to protect investors and promote the public interest, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.

    19 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

    The proposal also eliminates obsolete language from the GSD Rules by codifying the net-of-net settlement process in the GSD Rules, and makes non-substantive clarifying corrections to the GSD Rules. Accordingly, the changes related to the net-of-net settlement process and the clarifying changes to the GSD Rules should provide for a more well-founded and transparent legal framework for FICC's activities, consistent with Act Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1).20

    20 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).

    III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly those set forth in Section 17A,21 and the rules and regulations thereunder.

    21 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,22 that the proposed rule change (SR-FICC-2016-001) be, and hereby is, approved. 23

    22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    23 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.24

    24 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13611 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77992; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-79] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Virtus Japan Alpha ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 June 3, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on May 24, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the Virtus Japan Alpha ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares: 4 Virtus Japan Alpha ETF (“Fund”).5

    4 A Managed Fund Share is a security that represents an interest in an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) (“1940 Act”) organized as an open-end investment company or similar entity that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by its investment adviser consistent with its investment objectives and policies. In contrast, an open-end investment company that issues Investment Company Units, listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of a specific foreign or domestic stock index, fixed income securities index or combination thereof.

    5 The Commission has previously approved listing and trading on the Exchange of a number of actively managed funds under Rule 8.600. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57801 (May 8, 2008), 73 FR 27878 (May 14, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-31) (order approving Exchange listing and trading of twelve actively-managed funds of the WisdomTree Trust); 62502 (July 15, 2010), 75 FR 42471 (July 21, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-57) (order approving listing and trading of AdviserShares WCM/BNY Mellon Focused Growth ADR ETF); 63076 (October 12, 2010), 75 FR 63874 (October 18, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-79) (order approving listing and trading of Cambria Global Tactical ETF); 71540 (February 12, 2014), 79 FR 9515 (February 19, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-138) (order approving listing and trading of shares of the iShares Enhanced International Large-Cap ETF and iShares Enhanced International Small-Cap ETF).

    The Shares will be offered by Virtus ETF Trust II (“Trust”), which is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.6 Virtus ETF Advisers LLC will serve as the investment adviser to the Fund (“Adviser”). Euclid Advisors LLC will serve as the Fund's sub-adviser (“Sub-Adviser”). ETF Distributors LLC (“Distributor”) will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. Virtus ETF Solutions LLC will serve as the administrator for the Fund. The Bank of New York Mellon (“Transfer Agent”) will serve as accounting services administrator, custodian and transfer agent for the Fund.

    6 The Trust is registered under the 1940 Act. On February 26, 2016, the Trust filed with the Commission an amendment to its registration statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a), and under the 1940 Act relating to the Fund (File Nos. 333-206600 and 811-23078) (“Registration Statement”). The description of the operation of the Trust and the Fund herein is based, in part, on the Registration Statement. In addition, the Commission has issued an order granting certain exemptive relief to the Trust under the 1940 Act. See Investment Company Act Release No. 30825 (December 11, 2013) (File No. 812-14212).

    Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.7 Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 is similar to Commentary .03(a)(i) and (iii) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3); however, Commentary .06 in connection with the establishment of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable open-end fund's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds. The Adviser and Sub-Adviser are not registered broker-dealers but are affiliated with a broker-dealer and each has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. In the event (a) the Adviser or Sub-Adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.

    7 An investment adviser to an open-end fund is required to be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). As a result, the Adviser and its related personnel are subject to the provisions of Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act relating to codes of ethics. This Rule requires investment advisers to adopt a code of ethics that reflects the fiduciary nature of the relationship to clients as well as compliance with other applicable securities laws. Accordingly, procedures designed to prevent the communication and misuse of non-public information by an investment adviser must be consistent with Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act. In addition, Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act makes it unlawful for an investment adviser to provide investment advice to clients unless such investment adviser has (i) adopted and implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation, by the investment adviser and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the Commission rules adopted thereunder; (ii) implemented, at a minimum, an annual review regarding the adequacy of the policies and procedures established pursuant to subparagraph (i) above and the effectiveness of their implementation; and (iii) designated an individual (who is a supervised person) responsible for administering the policies and procedures adopted under subparagraph (i) above.

    Principal Investments

    According to the Registration Statement, under normal circumstances,8 the Fund will invest not less than 80% of its assets in the common stocks of certain Japanese companies listed in the JPX-Nikkei 400 Total Return Index (“Index”), a free-float adjusted market capitalization-weighted equity index composed of 400 Tokyo Stock Exchange-listed securities, and the financial instruments listed below.

    8 The term “under normal circumstances” includes, but is not limited to, the absence of extreme volatility or trading halts in the securities markets or the financial markets generally; circumstances under which the Fund's investments are made for temporary defensive purposes; operational issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market information; or force majeure type events such as systems failure, natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism, riot or labor disruption or any similar intervening circumstance.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will be actively-managed through the selection, at any given time, of approximately 80-100 common stocks from the Index based on quantitative and qualitative factors, including an assessment of the following characteristics: Cash flow return on invested capital; earnings quality and momentum; operational quality; corporate governance policies; and capital stewardship. The Fund may invest in such Index components by directly purchasing shares of common stock or investing in American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) 9 on the common stock of such Index components. Securities held by the Fund may be underweighted or overweighted relative to their positions in the Index.

    9 ADRs are bought and sold in the United States and are typically issued by a U.S. bank or trust company which evidence ownership of underlying securities by a foreign corporation. No more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund will be invested in ADRs that are not exchange-listed.

    Although the Fund will focus on investment in securities in the Index as described above, the Fund may also invest in common stocks of other Japanese companies with characteristics similar to those listed on the Index, as determined by the Sub-Adviser. With respect to such common stocks, the Fund will only invest in securities that are listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange 10 and that have a market capitalization of $250,000,000 U.S. dollars or greater. The Fund may also invest in ADRs on such common stocks.

    10 Japan Exchange Regulation (“JPX-R”) is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group and information relating to transactions in Tokyo Stock Exchange listed securities is available through JPX-R.

    Positions may be reduced or removed when the Sub-Adviser determines that a security has become overweighted within the Fund's portfolio, that the security's prospects have adversely changed, that the Fund should raise funds for new or other investments or that there are more attractive opportunities.

    Other Investments

    While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least 80% of its assets in common stock of Japanese companies listed in the Index, common stock of certain other Japanese companies and ADRs, as described above, the Fund will invest its remaining assets in the securities and financial instruments described below.

    The Fund may invest in securities index futures contracts and foreign currency futures contracts.11 According to the Registration Statement, in general, the Fund will not purchase or sell futures contracts unless either (i) the futures contracts are purchased for “bona fida hedging” purposes (as defined under applicable Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations) or (ii) if purchased for other purposes, the sum of the amounts of initial margin deposits and premiums required to establish such positions on the Fund's existing futures would not exceed 5% of the liquidation value of the Fund's total assets.

    11 In instances involving the purchase of futures contracts, the Fund will deposit in a segregated account with its custodian an amount of cash, cash equivalents and/or appropriate securities equal to the cost of such futures contracts, to the extent that such deposits are required under the 1940 Act.

    The Fund may also invest in forward contracts and non-deliverable forward (“NDF”) contracts on the foreign currency spot market.

    The Fund may invest in when-issued and forward commitment securities, which means delivery and payment take place a number of days after the date of the commitment to purchase, if the Fund holds sufficient liquid assets to meet the purchase price.

    The Fund may invest in the following equity securities (other than non-exchange traded investment company securities): Common stocks traded on U.S. or Japanese securities exchanges (other than the Tokyo Stock Exchange); common stocks traded on the over-the-counter market; U.S. and foreign exchange-traded preferred stocks; U.S. and foreign exchange-traded convertible preferred stocks; U.S. and foreign exchange-traded convertible bonds; U.S. and foreign exchange-traded warrants; and U.S. and foreign exchange-traded rights. The Fund will not invest in ADRs on any of these equity securities.

    In addition, the Fund may invest in, to the extent permitted by Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder,12 other open-end investment companies, including other exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”).13

    12 15 U.S.C. 80a-12(d)(1).

    13 For purposes of this filing, ETFs consist of Investment Company Units (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)), Portfolio Depositary Receipts (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100); and Managed Fund Shares (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600). All ETFs will be listed and traded in the U.S. on a national securities exchange. The Fund will not invest in inverse ETFs or in leveraged (e.g., 2X, -2X, 3X or -3X) ETFs.

    The Fund may invest in Currency Trust Shares.14

    14 Currency Trust Shares are securities such as those described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.202.

    The Fund may invest in real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) traded on U.S. exchanges and Japanese exchanges.

    The Fund may enter into short sales of securities. The Fund may also enter into short sales “against the box,” i.e., when the Fund sells a security short while owning a securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold short (or securities convertible or exchangeable into such securities) and will hold such securities while the short sale is outstanding.

    The Fund may invest in the following money market instruments: U.S. Government obligations; corporate debt obligations 15 (including, without limitation, those subject to repurchase agreements); banker's acceptances (credit instruments evidencing the obligation of a bank to pay a draft drawn on it by a customer); certificates of deposit of domestic branches of banks (certificates representing the obligation of a bank to repay funds deposited with it for a specified period of time); commercial paper 16 (unsecured, short-term debt obligation of a bank, corporation or other borrower); and master notes (unsecured obligations which are redeemable upon demand of the holder and which permit the investment of fluctuating amounts at varying rates of interest).

    15 The Adviser expects that under normal market conditions, the Fund will seek to invest at least 75% of its corporate bond assets in issuances that have at least $100,000,000 par amount outstanding in developed countries or at least $200,000,000 par amount outstanding in emerging market countries.

    16 According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will directly invest in commercial paper only if such commercial paper is rated in one of the two highest rating categories as rated by a major credit agency or, if unrated, will be of comparable quality as determined by the Sub-Adviser.

    The Fund may invest assets in shares of money market funds.

    Investment Restrictions

    The Fund may, from time to time, take temporary defensive positions that are inconsistent with its principal investment strategies in an attempt to respond to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions. In such circumstances, the Fund may also hold up to 100% of its portfolio in cash and cash equivalent positions.17

    17 Cash equivalents are short-term instruments with maturities of less than 3 months. Short-term instruments shall include the following: (i) U.S. Government securities, including bills, notes and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. Government agencies or instrumentalities; (ii) certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association; (iii) bankers' acceptances; (iv) repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements; (v) bank time deposits; (vi) commercial paper; and (vii)money market funds.

    The Fund intends to maintain the required level of diversification and otherwise conduct its operations so as to qualify as a “regulated investment company” for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.18

    18 26 U.S.C. 851.

    The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets, which are investments that cannot be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the prices at which they are valued. Under the supervision of the Board of Trustees of the Trust (“Board”), the Fund will determine the liquidity of the Fund's investments, which will be monitored by the Board pursuant to reports. If through a change in values, net assets or other circumstances, the Fund were in a position where more than 15% of its net assets were invested in illiquid assets, it would seek to take appropriate steps to protect liquidity.

    Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.19

    19 The Commission has stated that long-standing Commission guidelines have required open-end funds to hold no more than 15% of their net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets. See Investment Company Act Release No. 28193 (March 11, 2008), 73 FR 14618 (March 18, 2008), footnote 34. See also, Investment Company Act Release No. 5847 (October 21, 1969), 35 FR 19989 (December 31, 1970) (Statement Regarding “Restricted Securities”); Investment Company Act Release No. 18612 (March 12, 1992), 57 FR 9828 (March 20, 1992) (Revisions of Guidelines to Form N-1A). A fund's portfolio security is illiquid if it cannot be disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value ascribed to it by the fund. See Investment Company Act Release No. 14983 (March 12, 1986), 51 FR 9773 (March 21, 1986) (adopting amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act); Investment Company Act Release No. 17452 (April 23, 1990), 55 FR 17933 (April 30, 1990) (adopting Rule 144A under the 1933 Act).

    The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. That is, while the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (i.e., 2Xs and 3Xs) of the Index.

    Net Asset Value

    According to the Registration Statement, a Share's net asset value (“NAV”) will be determined as of the close of the regular trading session on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (normally at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“E.T.”)) on each day that the NYSE is open for trading. Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar will be converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources.

    The NAV of the Shares for the Fund is equal to the Fund's total assets minus the Fund's total liabilities divided by the total number of Shares outstanding. Interest and investment income on the Fund's assets accrue daily and are included in the Fund's total assets. Expenses and fees (including investment advisory, management, administration and distribution fees, if any) accrue daily and are included in the Fund's total liabilities. The NAV that is published is rounded to the nearest cent; however, for purposes of determining the price of Creation Units, the NAV is calculated to five decimal places.

    The pricing and valuation of portfolio securities is determined in good faith in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the direction of, the Board. In determining the value of the Fund's assets, equity securities (other than non-exchange traded investment company securities), including shares of preferred stocks, convertible preferred stocks, warrants, rights, ETFs, REITs, Currency Trust Shares and sponsored and unsponsored ADRs, generally will be valued at market value using quotations from the primary market on which they are traded. The Fund normally will use third party pricing services to obtain market quotations.

    Money market instruments and cash equivalents will be valued on the basis of broker quotes or valuations provided by a third party pricing service, which in determining value utilizes information regarding recent sales, market transactions in comparable securities, quotations from dealers and various relationships between securities.

    Futures contracts will generally be valued at the settlement price of the relevant exchange.

    Investments in other open end investment companies (other than ETFs) that are registered under the 1940 Act, including money market funds, will be valued based upon the NAVs reported by such registered open end investment companies. The prospectuses for these companies explain the circumstances under which they will use fair value pricing and the effects of using fair value pricing.

    NDFs and foreign forward currency contracts will be valued intraday using market quotes, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by a third party market data provider.

    Securities and assets for which market quotations are not readily available or which cannot be accurately valued using the Fund's normal pricing procedures will be valued by the Trust's Fair Value Pricing Committee at fair value as determined in good faith under policies approved by the Board. Fair value pricing may be used, for example, in situations where (i) portfolio securities, such as securities with small capitalizations, are so thinly traded that there have been no transactions for that security over an extended period of time; (ii) an event occurs after the close of the exchange on which a portfolio security is principally traded that is likely to change the value of the portfolio security prior to the Fund's NAV calculation; (iii) the exchange on which the portfolio security is principally traded closes early; or (iv) trading of the particular portfolio security is halted during the day and does not resume prior to the Fund's NAV calculation. In addition, the Trust may fair value foreign equity portfolio securities each day the Trust calculates the Fund's NAV. Pursuant to policies adopted by the Board, the Adviser will consult with Bank of New York Mellon and the Sub-Adviser on a regular basis regarding the need for fair value pricing. The Fund's policies regarding fair value pricing are intended to result in a calculation of the Fund's NAV that fairly reflects portfolio security values as of the time of pricing. A portfolio security's “fair value” price may differ from the price next available for that portfolio security using the Fund's normal pricing procedures, and the fair value price may differ substantially from the price at which the security may ultimately be traded or sold. The Board will monitor and evaluate the Fund's use of fair value pricing, and will periodically review the results of any fair valuation under the Trust's policies.

    Creation and Redemption of Shares

    According to the Registration Statement, Shares of the Fund will be “created” at NAV by certain large institutions only in block-size “Creation Units” of 50,000 Shares or multiples thereof. The size of a Creation Unit is subject to change. Only an “Authorized Participant” may create or redeem Creation Units directly with the Fund. Each Authorized Participant will enter into an authorized participant agreement with the Trust, Distributor and Transfer Agent (“Participant Agreement”). An Authorized Participant must either be (i) a broker-dealer or other participant (“Participating Party”) in the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System (“Clearing Process”) of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) or a clearing agency that is registered with the Commission or (ii) a participant of the Depository Trust Company (“DTC Participant”).

    A creation transaction generally takes place when an Authorized Participant deposits into the Fund a basket of equity securities included in the Fund's portfolio (“Deposit Securities”) and a specified cash payment (“Cash Component”).

    Similarly, Shares can be redeemed only in Creation Units, generally in exchange for Deposit Securities and a Cash Component.

    The prices at which creations and redemptions occur are based on the next calculation of NAV after a creation or redemption order is received in an acceptable form under the Participant Agreement.

    The consideration for purchase of Creation Units generally will consist of an in-kind deposit of Deposit Securities for each Creation Unit constituting a substantial replication, or a representation, of the securities included in the Fund's portfolio and a Cash Component (calculated as described in this section below). Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund.

    According to the Registration Statement, the function of the Cash Component will be to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the market value of the Deposit Securities. The Cash Component would be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities. If the Cash Component is a positive number (i.e., the NAV per Creation Unit exceeds the market value of the Deposit Securities), the Cash Component will be such positive amount and the Authorized Participant will deliver the Cash Component. If the Cash Component is a negative number (i.e., the NAV per Creation Unit is less than the market value of the Deposit Securities), the Cash Component will be such negative amount, and the Authorized Participant will be entitled to receive cash from the Fund in an amount equal to the Cash Component.

    The Fund, through NSCC, will make available on each day on which the NYSE is open for business (“Business Day”), immediately prior to the opening of business on the NYSE (currently 9:30 a.m., E.T.), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) for the Fund. The Fund, through NSCC, will also make available on each Business Day the estimated Cash Component, effective through and including the previous Business Day, per outstanding Creation Unit of the Fund.

    According to the Registration Statement, the identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities required for the Fund Deposit for the Fund may change as rebalancing adjustments and corporate action events are reflected from time to time by the Sub-Adviser with a view to the investment objective of the Fund. In addition, the Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash, i.e., a “cash in lieu” amount, to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security that may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery, that may not be eligible for transfer through the Clearing Process or that may not be eligible for trading by an Authorized Participant or the investor for which it is acting.

    All orders to create Creation Units, whether through the Clearing Process (through a Participating Party) or outside the Clearing Process (through a DTC Participant), must be received by the Distributor no later than 3:00 p.m., E.T., on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of the Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form.

    Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form on a Business Day and only through a Participating Party or DTC Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement.

    With respect to the Fund, the Trust, through NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the NYSE (currently 9:30 a.m., E.T.) on each Business Day, the Deposit Securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day. Deposit Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities that are applicable to creations of Creation Units.

    The redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will generally consist of Deposit Securities, as announced by the Trust on the Business Day of the request for a redemption received in proper form, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after receipt of the request, and the value of the Deposit Securities, less a redemption transaction fee. In the event that the Deposit Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the differential will be required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder.

    If it is not possible to effect deliveries of the Deposit Securities, the Trust may in its sole discretion exercise its option to redeem such Shares in cash. In addition, an investor may request a redemption in cash which the Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit.20 The Fund may also, in its sole discretion, upon request of the shareholder, provide such redeemer a portfolio of securities which differs from the exact composition of the Deposit Securities but does not differ in NAV.

    20 The Adviser represents that, to the extent the Trust effects the creation or redemption of Shares in cash, such transactions will be effected in the same manner for all Authorized Participants.

    The right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed with respect to the Fund: (i) For any period during which the NYSE is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (ii) for any period during which trading on the NYSE is suspended or restricted; (iii) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the Shares of the Fund or determination of the Shares' NAV is not reasonably practicable; or (iv) in such other circumstances as permitted by the Commission.

    Availability of Information

    The Fund's Web site (www.virtus.com), which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include quantitative information on a per-Share basis updated on a daily basis, including, for the Fund (i) the prior Business Day's NAV and mid-point of the bid-ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (“Bid-Ask Price”),21 and a calculation of the premium and discount of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, and (ii) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of the Fund, if shorter).

    21 The Bid-Ask Price of Shares of the Fund will be determined using the mid-point of the highest bid and the lowest offer on the Exchange as of the time of calculation of the Fund's NAV. The records relating to Bid-Ask Prices will be retained by the Fund and its service providers.

    On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Adviser will disclose on the Fund's Web site the Disclosed Portfolio for the Fund (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(2)) that will form the basis of the Fund's calculation of the NAV on that Business Day.

    On a daily basis, the Adviser, on behalf of the Fund, will disclose on the Fund's Web site the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding: Ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding); the identity of the security, index, or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value, notional value or number of shares, contracts or units; maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; and the percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.

    In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities (as applicable) required to be delivered in exchange for Fund Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the NYSE via the NSCC. The basket will represent one Creation Unit of the Fund.

    In order to provide additional information regarding the indicative value of Shares of the Fund, one or more market data vendors will disseminate every 15 seconds an updated Indicative Intra-Day Value (“IIV”) for the Fund as calculated by an information provider or market data vendor.

    The Fund's IIV will be calculated based on the current market value of the Fund's portfolio holdings that will form the basis of the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day as disclosed on the Fund's Web site prior to the Business Day's commencement of trading.

    Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's Shareholder Reports, and the Trust's Form N-CSR and Form N-Q, filed twice a year. The Trust's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-Q may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line. With respect to U.S. exchange-listed equity securities, the intra-day, closing and settlement prices of common stocks and exchange-traded equity securities (including shares of preferred stocks, convertible preferred stocks, warrants, rights, ETFs, REITs, Currency Trust Shares and ADRs) will be readily available from the national securities exchanges trading such securities, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. With respect to non-U.S. exchange-listed equity securities, intra-day, closing and settlement prices of common stocks and other equity securities (including REITs traded on Japanese exchanges, preferred stocks, convertible preferred stocks, warrants and rights), will be available from the foreign exchanges on which such securities trade as well as from major market data vendors. Intra-day and closing price information relating to securities regularly traded in an over-the-counter market will be available from major market data vendors. Price information from brokers and dealers or pricing services will be available for money market instruments, money market funds, cash equivalents, forwards and NDFs held by the Fund. Quotation and last sale information for futures will be available from the exchange on which they are listed. Price information regarding investment company securities (other than exchange-traded investment company securities) will be available from the applicable fund.

    In addition, the IIV,22 which is the Portfolio Indicative Value as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (c)(3), will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors.23 The dissemination of the IIV, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day. The IIV should not be viewed as a “real-time” update of the NAV per Share of the Fund, which will be calculated once per day.

    22 The IIV calculation will be an estimate of the value of the Fund's NAV per Share using market data converted into U.S. dollars at the current currency rates. The IIV price will be based on quotes and closing prices from the securities' local market and may not reflect events that occur subsequent to the local market's close. Premiums and discounts between the IIV and the market price of the Shares may occur. This should not be viewed as a “real-time” update of the NAV per Share of the Fund, which will be calculated only once a day.

    23 Currently, it is the Exchange's understanding that several major market data vendors display and/or make widely available IIVs taken from CTA or other data feeds.

    Trading Halts

    With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.24 Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (i) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments comprising the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (ii) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.

    24See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12.

    Trading Rules

    The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the Exchange from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., E.T., in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the Exchange is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.

    The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 25 under the Act, as provided by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3. A minimum of 100,000 Shares for the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time.

    25 17 CFR 240.10A-3.

    Surveillance

    The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.26 The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.

    26 FINRA conducts cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement.

    The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.

    The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).27 FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”).

    27 For a list of the current members of ISG, see www.isgportal.org. The Exchange notes that not all components of the Disclosed Portfolio for the Fund may trade on markets that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA.

    In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.

    Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in equity securities (other than non-exchange-traded investment company securities) shall consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA. Furthermore, not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in futures contracts shall consist of futures contracts whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA.

    All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (i) the description of the portfolio, (ii) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets or (iii) the applicability of Exchange rules and surveillance procedures shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.

    The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Funds [sic] are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).

    Information Bulletin

    Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (i) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (ii) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (iii) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (iv) how information regarding the IIV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (v) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (vi) trading information.

    In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m., E.T., each trading day.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 28 that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Adviser has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to its affiliated broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, ETFs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's TRACE. The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment). The ETFs held by the Fund will be traded on U.S. national securities exchanges and will be subject to the rules of such exchanges, as approved by the Commission. The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.

    The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on its Web site daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. Moreover, the IIV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. These criteria are similar to certain “generic” listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B), which relate to criteria applicable to an index or portfolio of U.S. and non-U.S. stocks underlying a series of Investment Company Units to be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The Web site for the Fund will include additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an [sic] Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. The intra-day, closing and settlement prices of the portfolio securities are also readily available from the national securities exchanges trading such securities, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IIV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.

    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a CSSA. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IIV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an actively-managed exchange-traded product that will principally hold non-U.S. equity securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-79 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-79. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-79, and should be submitted on or before June 30, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.29

    29 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13615 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77990; File No. SR-NSCC-2016-001] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Remove From the DTCC Limit Monitoring Tool the 50% Early Warning Limit Alert and Make Technical Revisions to the Rules June 3, 2016.

    On April 18, 2016, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2016-001 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 to amend NSCC's Rules and Procedures (“Rules”) 3 in order to (i) remove from the DTCC Limit Monitoring tool the alert that is sent to Members when trading activity in any of their Risk Entities reaches 50% of the pre-set trading limits for that Risk Entity and (ii) to make related technical changes and corrections to the Rules, as more fully described below. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 2, 2016.4 The Commission did not receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3Available at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf. Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77709 (April 26, 2016), 81 FR 26274 (May 2, 2016) (SR-NSCC-2016-001).

    I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The following is a description of the proposed rule change, as provided by NSCC:

    Reasons for Adopting the Proposed Rule Change. NSCC provides its Members with a risk management tool called DTCC Limit Monitoring, for which certain types of Members are required to register.5 DTCC Limit Monitoring enables Members that use the tool to monitor post-trade activity and to be notified when pre-set trading limits are reached. To use the tool, Members must (1) define one or more “Risk Entities,” which may include (i) the trading activity of a single trading desk within the firm; (ii) for Members that clear trades for other firms, i.e., their correspondents, the trading activity of a correspondent firm; (iii) for Members acting as a Special Representative or a QSR, as such terms are defined in the Rules,6 the trading activity of a firm with which it has a clearing relationship; (iv) the trading activity of a single clearing number within the Member's NSCC account structure; or (v) all trading activity of the Member submitted to NSCC for clearing; and (2) set a trading limit, at a net notional value, for each Risk Entity. DTCC Limit Monitoring then sets early warning limits at 50%, 75%, and 90% of those trading limits.7 Members receive alerts when trading activity for their Risk Entities reaches each of these early warning limits, as well as the pre-set trading limits.

    5 Rule 54 (DTCC Limit Monitoring) and Procedure XVII (DTCC Limit Monitoring), supra note 3; see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71637 (February 28, 2014), 79 FR 12708 (March 6, 2014) (SR-NSCC-2013-12).

    6 Rule 7 (Comparison and Trade Recording Operation) and Procedure IV (Special Representative Service), supra note 3.

    7 Rule 54 (DTCC Limit Monitoring) and Procedure XVII (DTCC Limit Monitoring, supra note 3.

    Since the implementation of DTCC Limit Monitoring in 2014, NSCC has periodically met with a working group of its Members to discuss the functioning of the tool and to confirm it provides Members with effective post-trade surveillance as intended. In response to Member feedback provided during these discussions, NSCC has proposed to remove the 50% early warning alert for the reasons described below.

    Additionally, NSCC has proposed to make technical revisions to Procedure XVII (DTCC Limit Monitoring Procedure) primarily to revise the verb tense and add clarity regarding use of the tool.

    Issues the Proposed Rule Change Is Intended to Address. The proposed rule change will address concerns that (1) the 50% early warning alert is set too low and, thus, may not provide Members with useful information for purposes of effective post-trade monitoring; (2) the frequency of the 50% early warning alert could have a negative impact on Member responsiveness to more critical alerts; and (3) the verb tense and certain other language in the Rule may be unclear and/or technically inaccurate.

    Manner in which the Proposed Rule Change Will Operate to Resolve the Issues. The proposed rule change will remove the 50% early warning alert from DTCC Limit Monitoring. DTCC Limit Monitoring will retain the 75% and 90% early warning alerts, which continue to provide Members with valuable notice of changes in their post-trade activity for purposes of effective risk management.

    Additionally, the proposed rule change will make certain technical changes that will clarify the Rule, primarily by updating the verb tense from future tense to present tense to reflect the present applicability of the Rule and by making certain other technical clarifications to language used in the Rule.

    Manner in which the Proposed Rule Change Will Affect Various Persons. Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring will no longer receive the 50% early warning alert, but they will continue to receive alerts when their trading activity in each Risk Entity reaches 75% and 90% of their pre-set trading limits. No other changes are proposed with respect to the functioning of DTCC Limit Monitoring.

    The proposed technical changes are not anticipated to have any effect on Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring.

    Significant Problems Known to the Self-Regulatory Organization that Persons Affected Are Likely to Have in Complying with the Proposed Rule Change. Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring will not have to take any action as a result of the proposed rule change, and NSCC is not aware of any problems that Members will have in continuing to comply with the Rules 8 that address DTCC Limit Monitoring after the implementation of the proposed rule change.

    8Id.

    As stated above, the proposed technical changes are not anticipated to have any effect on Members that use DTCC Limit Monitoring.

    Description of the Proposed Rule Change. In order to implement this proposed rule change, NSCC will amend Section 4 of Procedure XVII (DTCC Limit Monitoring Procedure) of the Rules to remove reference to the 50% early warning alert and to make certain technical clarifications to language used in the Rule, primarily by updating the verb tense used therein. No other changes to the Rules are contemplated by this proposed rule change.

    II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act 9 directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization. The Commission believes the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,10 as described in detail below.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to protect investors and the public interest.11 As described above, the 50% early warning alert may not provide Members with information that is useful for purposes of post-trade monitoring, but, rather, may distract Members from such information. By removing the 50% alert, a distraction is removed, thus increasing the effectiveness of the DTCC Limit Monitoring tool for Members to monitor their post-trade activity. Therefore, the proposed rule change will enhance Members' ability to manage risks from their trades, facilitating the protection of investors and the public interest from such risks.

    11Id.

    As the proposed rule change pertains to technical changes to the Rules, the Commission finds the technical changes also consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 12 because technical updates to the Rules to make them more clear, consistent, and current for Members that rely on the Rules supports the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.

    12Id.

    III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 13 and the rules and regulations thereunder.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2016-001 be, and hereby is, approved. 14

    14 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13613 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Notice of Exempt Preliminary Roll-Up Communication, SEC File No. 270-396, OMB Control No. 3235-0452.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

    Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(n) (17 CFR 240.14a-6(n)) requires any person that engages in a proxy solicitation subject to Exchange Act Rule 14a-2(b)(4) [(17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(4))] to file a Notice of Exempt Preliminary Roll-Up Communication (“Notice”) [(17 CFR 240.14a-104)] with the Commission. The Notice provides information regarding ownership interest and any potential conflicts of interest to be included in statements submitted by or on behalf of a person engaging in the solicitation. The Notice takes approximately 0.25 hours per response and is filed by approximately 4 respondents for a total of one annual burden hour (0.25 hours per response × 4 response).

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

    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 control number.

    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected]

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13617 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Form S-8; SEC File No. 270-66, OMB Control No. 3235-0066.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

    Form S-8 (17 CFR 239.16b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) is the primary registration statement used by eligible registrants to register securities to be issued in connection with an employee benefit plan. We estimate that Form S-8 takes approximately 24 hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 2,140 respondents. In addition, we estimate that 50% of the preparation time (12 hours) is completed in-house by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 25,680 (12 hours per response × 2,140 responses).

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

    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 control number.

    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected]

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13616 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Rule 155; SEC File No. 270-492, OMB Control No. 3235-0549.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

    Rule 155 (17 CFR 230.155) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) provides safe harbors for a registered offering of securities following an abandoned private offering, or a private offering following an abandoned registered offering, without integrating the registered and private offerings in either case. In connection with a registered offering following an abandoned private offering, Rule 155 requires an issuer to include in any prospectus filed as a part of a registration statement disclosure regarding the abandoned the private offering. Similarly, the rule requires an issuer to provide each offeree in a private offering following an abandoned registered offering with: (1) Information concerning the withdrawal of the registration statement; (2) the fact that the private offering is unregistered; and (3) the legal implications of the offering's unregistered status. We estimate Rule 155 takes approximately 4 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 600 respondents annually.

    We estimate that 50% of the 4 hours per response (2 hours per response) is prepared by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 1,200 hours (2 hours per response × 600 responses).

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

    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 control number.

    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected]

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13618 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77991; File No. SR-DTC-2016-003] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Pursuant to Which It Would Impose Deposit Chills and Global Locks and Provide Fair Procedures to Issuers June 3, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on May 27, 2016, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) 3 of the Act thereunder. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (the “Rules”) in order to add a Rule which establishes: (i) The circumstances under which DTC would impose and release a restriction on Deposits of an Eligible Security (a “Deposit Chill”) or on book-entry services for an Eligible Security (a “Global Lock”); and (ii) the fair procedures for notice and an opportunity for the issuer of the Eligible Security (the “Issuer”) to challenge the Deposit Chill or Global Lock (each, a “Restriction”), as described below.4

    4 Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its respective meaning as set forth in the Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The proposal would add new Rule 33 (Deposit Chills and Global Locks) to establish: (i) The circumstances under which DTC would impose and release a Deposit Chill or a Global Lock; and (ii) the fair procedures for notice and an opportunity for the Issuer to challenge the Restriction, as described below.

    (i) Background A. DTC

    DTC is the nation's central securities depository, registered as a clearing agency under Section 17A of the Act.5 DTC's deposit and book-entry transfer services help facilitate the operation of the nation's securities markets. By serving as registered holder of trillions of dollars of Securities, DTC, on a daily basis, processes enormous volumes of securities transactions facilitated by book-entry movement of interests, without the need to transfer physical certificates.

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20221 (September 23, 1983), 48 FR 45167 (October 3, 1983) (File No. 600-1).

    DTC performs services and maintains Securities Accounts for its Participants, primarily banks and broker dealers, pursuant to its Rules and Procedures. Participants agree to be bound by the Rules and Procedures of DTC as a condition of their DTC membership.6 DTC allows a Participant to present Securities to be made eligible for DTC's depository and book-entry services. If a Security is accepted by DTC as meeting DTC's eligibility requirements for services 7 and is deposited with DTC for credit to the Securities Account of a Participant, it becomes an Eligible Security. Thereafter, Participants may deposit shares of that Eligible Security into their respective DTC accounts. To facilitate book-entry transfers and other services that DTC provides for its Participants with respect to Deposited Securities, the Deposited Securities are generally registered on the books of the Issuer (typically, in a register maintained by a transfer agent) in DTC's nominee name, Cede & Co. Deposited Securities that are eligible for book-entry services are maintained in “fungible bulk,” i.e., each Participant whose Securities of an issue have been credited to its Securities Account has a pro rata (proportionate) interest in DTC's entire inventory of that issue, but none of the Securities on deposit are identifiable to or “owned” by any particular Participant.8

    6See supra note 5.

    7See Rule 5, supra note 4; DTC Operational Arrangements (Necessary for Securities to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services), January 2012 (the “Operational Arrangements”), Section 1, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/eligibility/operational-arrangements.pdf.

    8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 19678 (April 15, 1983), 48 FR 17603, 17605, n.5 (April 25, 1983) (describing fungible bulk); see also N.Y. Uniform Commercial Code, § 8-503, Off. Cmt 1 (“. . . all entitlement holders have a pro rata interest in whatever positions in that financial asset the [financial] intermediary holds”).

    The Commission has recognized that DTC plays a “critical function” in the National Clearance and Settlement system.9 More recently, the federal Financial Stability Oversight Council, which was established pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,10 designated DTC as a Systemically Important Financial Market Utility (as defined therein).11

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47978 (June 4, 2003), 68 FR 35037, 35041 (June 11, 2003) (File No. SR-DTC-2003-02).

    10 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

    11See Financial Stability Oversight Council, 2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, available at https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Appendix%20A%20Designation%20of%20Systemically%20Important%20Market%20Utilities.pdf.

    B. Deposit Chills and Global Locks: Prior Procedures

    Previously, upon detecting suspiciously large deposits of a thinly traded Eligible Security, DTC imposed or proposed to impose a Deposit Chill as a measure to maintain the status quo while, pursuant to its Operational Arrangements,12 DTC required the Issuer to confirm by legal opinion of independent counsel that the Eligible Security fulfilled the requirements for eligibility. The Deposit Chill would be maintained until the Issuer provided a satisfactory legal opinion. The Deposit Chill could remain in place for years, due to an Issuer's non-responsiveness, refusal, or inability to submit the required legal opinion.

    12See Operational Arrangements, Section I.A, supra note 7.

    With respect to Global Locks, DTC previously imposed a Global Lock on an Eligible Security when a governmental or regulatory authority commenced a proceeding or action alleging violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, with respect to such Eligible Security. A Global Lock could be released when the underlying enforcement action was withdrawn, dismissed on the merits with prejudice, or otherwise resolved in a final, non-appealable judgment in favor of the defendants allegedly responsible for the violations of federal securities laws. However, many enforcement actions are only resolved after several years 13 and commonly without any definitive determination of wrongdoing.14

    13See, e.g., SEC v. Kahlon, 12-CV-517 (E.D. Tex., filed August 14, 2012); SEC v. Bronson, 12-cv-06421-KMK (S.D.N.Y., filed August 22, 2012). As of the date of this filing, neither case has been resolved.

    14See, e.g., SEC v. Reiss, 13-cv-01537, dkt no. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (issuing a final judgment against the defendant in an enforcement action, without the defendant admitting or denying the allegations).

    The above describes, in part, the proposed procedures filed by DTC on December 5, 2013,15 in response to the Commission's opinion and order in In re International Power Group, Ltd. (“IPWG”) directing DTC to “adopt procedures that accord with the fairness requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(H).” 16 DTC withdrew the proposed rule change on August 18, 2014.17

    15See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71132 (December 18, 2013); 78 FR 77755 (December 24, 2013) (File No. SR-DTC-2013-11).

    16See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66611 (March 15, 2012), 2012 SEC LEXIS 844 at *32 (March 15, 2012) (Admin. Proc. File No. 3-13687).

    17See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72860 (August 18, 2014), 79 FR 49825 (August 22, 2014) (File No. SR-DTC-2013-11).

    As a result of DTC's experiences following the IPWG decision and in connection with the previous proposed rule change, DTC has determined that its proposed procedures for imposing Deposit Chills and Global Locks are more appropriately directed to current trading halts or suspensions imposed by the Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), or a court of competent jurisdiction, and therefore are more effective in targeting suspected securities fraud that is ongoing at the time the Restriction is imposed. In particular, with respect to Deposit Chills imposed pursuant to DTC's previous procedures, DTC believes that wrongdoers have seemingly taken into account DTC's Restriction process, and have been avoiding it by shortening the timeframe in which they complete their scheme, dump their shares into the market, and move on to another issue.

    Additionally, Global Locks were typically being imposed on the basis of a Commission enforcement action alleging securities law violations that had occurred in the past, and so could not affect the violative behavior (unless the alleged securities law violations were ongoing). In fact, it is DTC's understanding that, by the time of an enforcement action, the wrongdoers had long since transferred the subject securities. In addition, although a Global Lock bars book-entry settlements within DTC, it does not affect the trading of the issue, which occurs outside of DTC.

    (ii) Proposal A. Proposed Basis for the Imposition of Deposit Chills and Global Locks

    With this proposal, DTC would establish the basis for the imposition of Deposit Chills and Global Locks, premised on direct current judicial or regulatory intervention or the threat of imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants. DTC believes that the proposed rule change would provide a basis for imposing and releasing Restrictions that is consistent with its obligations under applicable law.

    Under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1 of the proposed rule, if FINRA or the Commission halts or suspends trading of an Eligible Security, DTC would impose a Global Lock. Similarly, under subsection (c) of Section 1 of the proposed rule, DTC would impose a Restriction if ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. Consistent with its mandate “to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,” 18 DTC's facilities should not be available to settle transactions otherwise prohibited by the Commission, FINRA, or a court of competent jurisdiction. The imposition of a Global Lock on an Eligible Security for which trading is halted or suspended would prevent settlement of trades that continue despite the halt or suspension, and prevent a bad actor from liquidating a position through DTC in order to obtain the proceeds of fraudulent activities.

    18 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1 of the proposed Rule, DTC recognizes that FINRA and the Commission issue trading halts and suspensions for numerous reasons, and so there may be certain limited circumstances where a Global Lock would not further the regulatory purpose of such trading halt or suspension. Therefore, if DTC reasonably determines that such is the case, DTC may decline to impose a Global Lock. Some examples of when DTC may decline to impose a Global Lock include, but are not limited to, if FINRA issues a trading halt in all OTC equity securities due to a technical glitch; or if FINRA issues a trading halt clearly based on financial uncertainty in a foreign jurisdiction that doesn't affect DTC's ability to settle transactions.

    Finally, under subsection (d) of Section 1 of the proposed rule, DTC would impose a Restriction when it becomes aware of a need for immediate action to avert an imminent harm, injury, or other such material adverse consequence to DTC or its Participants that could arise from further Deposits of, or continued book-entry services with respect to, an Eligible Security. While it is impossible to anticipate all possible scenarios that may give rise to the need for action by DTC under this subsection (d) to avoid imminent harm, DTC does not anticipate that it would impose Restrictions pursuant to this formulation frequently. Some examples where this provision may be invoked include, but are not limited to, if DTC becomes aware that marketplace actors were about to deposit Securities at DTC in connection with an ongoing corporate hijacking, market manipulation, or in violation of other applicable laws; if an Issuer or its agent provides DTC with plausible information that Security certificates were stolen and were about to be deposited; or if an Issuer notifies DTC that shares of a Security had just been issued erroneously upon a conversion of previously satisfied notes.

    The concept of taking immediate action to avoid imminent harm to DTC or its Participants was recognized in the Commission's opinion in IPWG. The Commission ruled that, when faced with justifiable circumstances, DTC may design fair procedures “in accordance with its own internal needs and circumstances,” 19 recognizing that:

    19IPWG, 2012 SEC LEXIS at *30, n.36.

    If DTC believes that circumstances exist that justify imposing a suspension of services with respect to an issuer's securities in advance of being able to provide the issuer with notice and an opportunity to be heard on the suspension, it may do so. However, in such circumstances, these processes should balance the identifiable need for emergency action with the issuer's right to fair procedures under the Exchange Act. Under such procedures, DTC would be authorized to act to avert an imminent harm, but it could not maintain such a suspension indefinitely without providing expedited fair process to the affected issuer.20

    20Id. at *29. See also In re Atlantis Internet Group (“Atlantis”), Securities Exchange Act Release. No. 75168 at 7-8, 2015 SEC LEXIS 2394 at *18 (June 12, 2015) (Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15432) (“DTC's imposition of the Global Lock without advance notice was an appropriate exercise of its authority to act to prevent imminent harm . . .”).

    B. Proposed Basis for the Release of Deposit Chills and Global Locks

    As part of DTC's process for imposing Restrictions premised on direct court or regulatory agency intervention or the prospect of imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants, the proposed rule change provides corresponding criteria for releasing such Restrictions.

    As an initial matter, pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would release a Restriction when DTC reasonably determines that its imposition of the Restriction was based on a clerical mistake.

    In the case of a Global Lock imposed pursuant to subsections (a) or (b) of Section 1 of the proposed rule (FINRA trading halt or Commission trading suspension), under the proposed rule change, DTC would release the Global Lock when the halt or suspension of trading of the Eligible Security has been lifted. In the case of a Restriction imposed pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 1 of the proposed rule (order from a court of competent jurisdiction), under the proposed rule change, DTC would release the Restriction when a court of competent jurisdiction orders DTC to release the Restriction. Since trading would no longer be prohibited by FINRA, the Commission, or court order, respectively, there should not be any settlement restrictions, other than those otherwise provided in the Rules.

    Finally, in the case of a Restriction imposed pursuant to subsection (d) of Section 1 of the proposed rule (imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants), pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would release the Restriction when it reasonably determines that the release of the Restriction would not pose a threat of imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants, obviating the original basis for the Restriction.

    It is impossible to anticipate all possible scenarios that may give rise to a release of a Restriction under this basis. However, DTC anticipates that it would release such Restriction in a number of circumstances, including without limitation:

    • When DTC determines that the perceived harm has passed or is significantly remote;

    • when the basis for the Restriction no longer exists. For example, where DTC imposed a Deposit Chill on the basis of plausible information that certificates were stolen and about to be deposited, and DTC subsequently receives plausible information that the certificates have been recovered and will not be deposited, or where DTC imposed a Deposit Chill based on erroneously issued shares, and subsequently receives copies of a “Stop transfer” 21 directive and cancellation of such shares before they have been deposited; or

    21 A “stop transfer” is an order made to prevent the transfer of ownership of a security.

    • when an Eligible Security had been previously Globally Locked based on a Commission enforcement action but there is no indication that illegally distributed Securities are about to be deposited.

    C. Proposed Fair Procedures

    DTC has developed the procedures in the proposed rule change to give the Issuer a timely notice of the Restriction, provide the Issuer an opportunity to submit a written challenge to the Restriction, provide a review and written determination by an independent officer, and maintain a complete record of the proceeding, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Act 22 and the Commission's opinion and order in IPWG.

    22 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(H).

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would send written notice (“Restriction Notice”) to the Issuer's last known business address and to the last known business address of the Issuer's transfer agent, if any, on record with DTC. The Restriction Notice would be sent within three Business Days of imposition of a Restriction and would set forth: (i) The basis for the Restriction; (ii) the date the Restriction was imposed; (iii) that the Issuer may submit a written response to DTC detailing the basis for release of the Restriction under proposed Rule 33 (“the Restriction Response”); and (iv) that the Restriction Response must be received by DTC within twenty Business Days of delivery of the Restriction Notice.

    Once the Restriction Response is received by DTC, the proposed rule change provides that it would be reviewed by a DTC officer who did not have responsibility for the imposition of the Restriction. DTC may request additional information from the Issuer. After the officer's review is completed, DTC would provide a written decision (a “Restriction Decision”) to the Issuer. Within ten Business Days of delivery of the Restriction Decision, the Issuer may submit a supplement (a “Supplement”) for the sole purpose of establishing that DTC made a clerical mistake or mistake arising from an oversight or omission in reviewing the Restriction Response.

    If the Issuer submits a Supplement, the officer would provide a supplement decision (a “Supplement Decision”) within ten Business Days after the Supplement was delivered. The Restriction Notice, the Restriction Response, the Restriction Decision, the Supplement, the Supplement Decision, and any other documents submitted in connection with these procedures would constitute the record for purposes of any appeal to the Commission.

    The proposed rule change would not affect DTC's ability (A) to lift or modify a Restriction; (B) to operationally restrict book-entry services, Deposits or other services in the ordinary course of business, as such restrictions do not constitute Deposit Chills or Global Locks for purposes of proposed Rule 33; (C) to communicate with the Issuer or its transfer agent or representative, if any, provided that substantive communications are memorialized in writing to be included in the record for purposes of any appeal to the Commission; or (D) to send out a Restriction Notice prior to the imposition of a Restriction.

    DTC believes that these procedures comport with Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Act, which requires that a registered clearing agency that denies or limits access to the agency's services to a “person,” it must “provide a fair procedure.” 23 Such procedures require the clearing agency to give the person notice and an opportunity to address the specific grounds for denial or prohibition or limitation and to keep a record.24 In its decision in IPWG, the Commission ruled, inter alia, that issuers are “persons” for the purposes of Section 17A(b)(3).25

    23See id.

    24See 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(5)(B).

    25IPWG, 2012 SEC LEXIS at *24.

    Section 17A of the Act does not specify the nature of the fair procedures DTC must provide to “persons,” including issuers. In IPWG, the Commission observed that:

    Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(5)(B) states that, when a registered clearing agency determines that “a person shall be . . . prohibited or limited with respect to access to services offered by the clearing agency, the clearing agency shall notify such person of, and give him an opportunity to be heard upon, the specific grounds for . . . prohibition or limitation under consideration and keep a record.” 26

    26Id.

    As stated in IPWG, “DTC may design such [Section 17A procedures] in accordance with its own internal needs and circumstances.” 27 The Commission further ruled in IPWG that DTC “should adopt procedures that accord with the fairness requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(H), which may be applied uniformly” in the cases where DTC denies or limits services with respect to an Issuer's Securities.

    27Id. at *30 n.36.

    In the Commission's more recent opinion in Atlantis, the Commission upheld the notice, opportunity to be heard, and recordkeeping that DTC provided to a Globally Locked issuer. Significantly, the Commission held that Section 17A of the Act does not require DTC to hold a formal hearing in order to satisfy its obligations under Section 17A to provide Issuers with an opportunity to be heard.28

    28Id. at *19.

    DTC believes that the procedures in proposed Rule 33 for giving notice of the Restriction to the Issuer with an opportunity to be heard are consistent with the fair procedures upheld by the Commission in Atlantis. In addition, consistent with the Commission's broad directive in IPWG, DTC believes that the proposed rule would establish uniform standards for the imposition of Restrictions, as well as the fair procedures for Issuers whose Securities are subject to a Restriction.

    Implementation Timeframe

    DTC will announce the effective date via Important Notice upon the Commission's approval of the proposed rule change.

    2. Statutory Basis

    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 29 and Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Act.30

    29 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    30 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(H).

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 31 requires, inter alia, that the rules of the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible. By establishing a framework for DTC to impose and release Restrictions, the proposed rule change would provide a mechanism for DTC to act quickly and efficiently to screen out, prior to deposit, or restrict, after deposit, Securities for which trading has been prohibited by the Commission, FINRA, or a court of competent jurisdiction, or which pose a threat of imminent adverse consequences to DTC or its Participants, to assure the safeguarding of Securities deposited to and held by DTC, consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, cited above.

    31 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Act, requires, inter alia, that the rules of a clearing agency are in accordance with the provisions of Section 17A(b)(5)(B) of the Act,32 and in general provide a fair procedure with respect to the prohibition or limitation by the clearing agency of any person with respect to access to services offered by the clearing agency. By establishing a procedure that would provide for: (A) Criteria for notice to an Issuer that a Deposit Chill or Global Lock has been imposed; (B) an explanation of the specific grounds upon which any Restriction has been imposed; (C) the actions that the Issuer may take to object to the Restriction; (D) the process DTC would undertake to review written submissions of the Issuer and to render a final decision concerning the Restriction; (E) the grounds upon which DTC may release the Restriction; and (F) the maintenance of a complete record for submission to the Commission in the event an Issuer appeals, the proposed rule change would provide Issuers with fair procedures with respect to Deposit Chills and Global Locks, consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Act, cited above.33

    32 Section 17A(b)(5)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(5)(B) provides: “In any proceeding by a registered clearing agency to determine whether a person shall be denied participation or prohibited or limited with respect to access to services offered by the clearing agency, the clearing agency shall notify such person of, and give him an opportunity to be heard upon, the specific grounds for denial or prohibition or limitation under consideration and keep a record. A determination by the clearing agency to deny participation or prohibit or limit a person with respect to access to services offered by the clearing agency shall be supported by a statement setting forth the specific grounds on which the denial or prohibition or limitation is based.”

    33 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(H).

    (B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on, or impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed procedures as described above would apply to all Eligible Securities that may be subject to a Deposit Chill or Global Lock.

    (C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received with respect to this filing. To the extent DTC receives written comments on the proposed rule change DTC will forward such comments to the Commission.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-DTC-2016-003 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2016-003. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2016-003 and should be submitted on or before June 30, 2016.

    34 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.34

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13614 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9600] International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take place on July 12, 2016, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military affairs, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.

    For more information, contact Christopher Herrick, Acting Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U. S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647-9683.

    Dated: May 20, 2016. Christopher Herrick, Acting Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13677 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD [Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 760X)] CSX Transportation, Inc.—Discontinuance of Service Exemption—in Boone County, W.Va.

    CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—Exempt Abandonments and Discontinuances of Service to discontinue service over an approximately 2.9-mile rail line on CSXT's Southern Region, Huntington Division, Pond Fork Subdivision, the Robinson Creek Industrial Track, from the connection with CSXT's mainline at milepost CLK 0.0 to the end of the line at milepost CLK 2.9+ in Boone County, W.Va. (the Line). The Line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Code 26325 and includes the Holbrook station at milepost CLK 2.0 (FSAC 82034/OPSL 65220).1

    1 CSXT states that this station can be closed.

    CSXT has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) because the Line is not a through route, no overhead traffic has operated, and, therefore, none needs to be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is pending either with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication) and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.

    As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance of service shall be protected under Oregon Short Line Railroad—Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed.

    Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will be effective on July 9, 2016, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2) 2 must be filed by June 17, 2016.3 Petitions to reopen must be filed by June 29, 2016, with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which is currently set at $1,600. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

    3 Because this is a discontinue proceeding and not an abandonment, interim trail use/rail banking and public use conditions are not appropriate. Because there will be an environmental review during abandonment, this discontinuance does not require an environmental review.

    A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative: Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.

    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.

    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

    Decided: June 6, 2016.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

    Kenyatta Clay, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13640 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [Docket No. FRA-2016-0052] Environmental Impact and Related Procedures AGENCY:

    Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    FRA is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the potential application of 23 CFR part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, to railroad projects. Part 771 currently prescribes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 23 U.S.C. 139, Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking. FRA would further develop the application of 23 CFR part 771 to railroad projects in a rulemaking proceeding.

    DATES:

    FRA must receive written comments on this notice on or before July 11, 2016. FRA will consider comments received after this date to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments: Persons providing comments related to docket number FRA-2016-0052 must do so by any of the following methods:

    Online: Comments should be filed at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket name and docket number for this notice. Note that FRA will post all comments received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: To access the docket or read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael Johnsen, Environmental and Corridor Planning Division, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by telephone at 202-493-1310 or Mr. Chris Van Nostrand, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by telephone at 202-493-6058.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 4, 2015, the President signed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act into law (Pub. L. 114-94). Section 11503 of the FAST Act requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary), among other things, to apply, to the greatest extent feasible, the project development procedures described in 23 U.S.C. 139 (Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking) to railroad projects requiring the Secretary's approval under NEPA. The Secretary must incorporate into FRA regulations and procedures for railroad projects aspects of the 23 U.S.C. 139 project development procedures, or portions thereof, which increase the efficiency of the review of railroad projects consistent with section 11503. In addition, section 11503 requires the Secretary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose new and existing categorical exclusions for railroad projects the Secretary must approve under NEPA. See 49 U.S.C. 24201(c).

    In light of section 11503's requirements, FRA is evaluating whether to apply 23 CFR part 771 to railroad projects. Part 771 currently prescribes FHWA and FTA procedures for implementing NEPA, including 23 U.S.C. 139 requirements. In FRA's view, applying part 771 to railroad projects may be the most efficient way to comply with section 11503 and promote consistency in FTA, FHWA, and FRA environmental reviews. In addition, FRA would not need to develop entirely new NEPA regulations for railroad projects. FRA, in conjunction with FHWA and FTA, would engage in a rulemaking to revise part 771 to make it applicable to railroad projects before such an approach would become effective. FRA seeks input from interested parties, stakeholders, and the public on this proposal.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2016. Sarah E. Feinberg, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13621 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0002] 3D Surrogate Vehicle Scanning Event AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NHTSA is announcing a public meeting to seek stakeholder feedback on a full-size 3-dimensional surrogate vehicle being developed to better support the evaluation of advanced crash avoidance technologies. NHTSA, Euro NCAP, Thatcham, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have been collaboratively working to develop this surrogate; however, confirmation that it appears as realistic to the sensors used in automotive safety systems requires feedback from industry experts.

    DATES:

    NHTSA will hold the public meeting July 13-14, 2016, in East Liberty, OH. Each day the meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. and continue until 5:00 p.m., local time. Check-in will begin at 8:00 a.m. All attendees for the meeting are required to register by following the instructions under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than June 24, 2016. Admission onto the facility will not be permitted without advanced registration.

    Following the event, participants are requested to submit all written feedback and supporting information pertaining to their 3D surrogate vehicle measurements no later than August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held on the test track at the Transportation Research Center, Inc., 10820 SR 347, East Liberty, OH 43319.

    Written Comments: Written feedback and supporting information should be submitted not later than August 5, 2016, by any of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    Fax: 202-366-1767.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.

    Docket: For access to the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacy.html.

    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should submit a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Attendees should register at http://goo.gl/forms/C6tj0oRj1QlS4qNy2 not later than June 24, 2016. Admission onto the facility will not be permitted without advanced registration. Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take available measures to notify registered participants. If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    To date, multiple iterative efforts have been made to produce a 3D surrogate vehicle that not only emulates a passenger car from any approach angle, but one that can be safely and repeatedly struck by an actual light or heavy vehicle without harm. In Europe, vehicle manufacturers and suppliers were presented with two opportunities to measure the appearance of multiple surrogate designs during similar test events hosted by Thatcham in the UK. The feedback received from these companies has been invaluable, and has helped refine the surrogate to its current characteristics.

    On July 13-14, 2016, NHTSA will be hosting a U.S.-based test event featuring the most recent iteration of the collaboratively-developed 3D surrogate vehicle and up to two robotic platforms (the surrogate vehicle is secured to a shallow self-propelled robotic platform to facilitate accurate longitudinal and lateral movement during testing). During this two-day meeting, vehicle manufacturers and suppliers will have an opportunity to measure the appearance of the 3D surrogate vehicle from multiple approach angles using vehicle-based sensors (e.g., radar, lidar, cameras, etc.). Feedback from the first day of testing will be used to make adjustments to the surrogate ahead of the second day's tests. Results from the second testing day will be used to help finalize the surrogate's design. The stated goal is to identify a final design by December 2016.

    Feedback from the participants will be beneficial in finalizing the design of the surrogate. Meeting participants will have the opportunity to provide results from the measurements collected with their respective test equipment, and to provide specific recommendations about how the surrogate vehicle's appearance, to any sensor, could be improved. When providing these recommendations, participants are asked to consider the balance between realism and practicality. While it is very important the surrogate look as realistic as possible, it must also remain strikeable from any approach angle, over a broad range of impact speeds, without affecting the safety of those using it or harming the vehicle being evaluated.

    Draft Agenda (in local time) Wednesday, July 13, 2016 08:00-09:00 Arrival/Check-In 09:00-09:30 Brief presentations describing the need for 3D surrogate vehicles, and development efforts to date. 09:30-09:45 Descriptions of the event test layout and choreography 09:45-12:00 Morning testing 12:00-13:00 Lunch break 13:00-16:00 Afternoon testing 16:00-17:00 Discuss the day's testing. Agree on what changes are to be made ahead of the next day's evaluations. 17:00 Adjourn Thursday, July 14, 2016 08:00-08:30 Arrival/Check-In 08:30-12:00 Morning testing 12:00-13:00 Lunch break 13:00-15:30 Afternoon testing 15:30-17:00 Discuss preliminary results from the event's testing and how the results will be collected, consolidated, and disseminated. 17:00 Adjourn Public Meeting Topics

    Discussions pertaining to the 3D surrogate vehicle will be focused on what features, if any, will need to be adjusted to allow it to appear realistic to automotive sensing systems. NHTSA does not intend to discuss how it may use 3D surrogate vehicles beyond inclusion is its research programs.

    Surrogate vehicle feedback forms will be available on-site, and will request information about, but not be limited to, the following topics:

    1. Are the radar return characteristics of the surrogate, including radar cross section (RCS), adequately realistic from each approach angle, depth, and height relative to the ground?

    2. Are the visual characteristics, including the overall shape, reflectivity, contrasting features, of the surrogate adequately realistic?

    3. Is the surrogate able to adequately support lidar-based safety systems?

    4. Is the presence of the robotic platform beneath the surrogate apparent to the automotive sensing system (radar, visual, etc.)? If so, what effect will the platform's presence expected to have on safety system performance?

    5. How consistent is the classification of the surrogate (e.g., distance to the surrogate at which the safety system classifies the surrogate as being an actual vehicle, and does the classification remain stable during the test vehicle's approach to the surrogate). How does this consistency compare to that expected by the overall light vehicle population? What effect does the panel misalignment have on surrogate classification?

    6. From an industry perspective, what is the preferred rank order of the following: absolute surrogate vehicle realism, strikeablity/durability, or ease of reassembly?

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated by 49 CFR 1.95. Nathaniel Beuse, Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13665 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations—Report on Closure by U.S. Financial Institutions of Correspondent Accounts and Payable-Through Accounts AGENCY:

    Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) (PRA). Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning OFAC's Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations Report on Closure by U.S. Financial Institutions of Correspondent Accounts and Payable-Through Accounts.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: Attn: Request for Comments (Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations—Report on Closure by U.S. Financial Institutions of Correspondent Accounts and Payable-Through Accounts) 202-622-1657.

    Mail: Attn: Request for Comments (Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations—Report on Closure by U.S. Financial Institutions of Correspondent Accounts and Payable-Through Accounts), Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and the Federal Register Doc. number that appears at the end of this document. Comments received will be made available to the public via regulations.gov or upon request, without change and including any personal information provided.

    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:

    Title: Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations—Report on Closure by U.S. Financial Institutions of Correspondent Accounts and Payable-Through Accounts.

    OMB Number: 1505-0255.

    Abstract: Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 566 (the Regulations), the Secretary of the Treasury may, among other things, prohibit a U.S. financial institution from opening or maintaining a correspondent account or a payable-through account in the United States for a foreign financial institution that the Secretary has determined has engaged in certain activities involving Hizballah and whose name is added to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations List (HFSR List) on OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Section 566.504 of the Regulations authorizes certain transactions related to the winding down and closing of such a correspondent account or payable-through account. Section 566.506(b) includes a reporting requirement pursuant to which a U.S. financial institution that maintained such an account must file a report with OFAC that provides full details on the closing of each such account within 30 days of the closure of the account. This collection of information assists in verifying that U.S. financial institutions are complying with prohibitions on maintaining correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts for foreign financial institutions listed on the HFSR List. The reports will be reviewed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and may be used for compliance and enforcement purposes by the agency.

    Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the collection at this time.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: U.S. financial institutions operating correspondent or payable-through accounts for foreign financial institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: Because this collection of information is a report that must be filed by U.S. financial institutions closing correspondent or payable-through accounts for a foreign financial institution pursuant to section 566.504 after OFAC adds the name of the foreign financial institution to the HFSR List, OFAC cannot predict the number of respondents for the section 566.504(b) reporting requirement at this time. From the date this reporting requirement was implemented pursuant to the Regulations (April 15, 2016) through June 9, 2016, OFAC did not add the name of any foreign financial institution to the HFSR List, and the number of respondents to this collection was therefore zero. For future PRA submissions, OFAC will continue to report retrospectively on the number of respondents during the previous reporting period.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 2 hours per response.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: Because the section 566.504(b) reporting requirement applies to those U.S. financial institutions that operate correspondent or payable-through accounts for a foreign financial institution whose name is added to the HFSR List, OFAC cannot predict the response rate for the section 566.504(b) reporting requirement at this time. For future PRA submissions, OFAC will report retrospectively on the response rate during the previous reporting period.

    The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

    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 OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained for five years.

    Request for Comments

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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.

    Andrea Gacki, Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13668 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
    UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION Requests for Applications; Practitioners Advisory Group AGENCY:

    United States Sentencing Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In view of upcoming vacancies in the voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group, the United States Sentencing Commission hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to succeed such a voting member to apply. The voting memberships covered by this notice are two circuit memberships (for the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit) and two at-large memberships. Application materials should be received by the Commission not later than August 8, 2016. An applicant for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission as indicated in the addresses section below.

    DATES:

    Application materials for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should be received not later than August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    An applicant for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is [email protected]. The regular mail address is United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 2-500, South Lobby, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502-4500, [email protected]. More information about the Practitioners Advisory Group is available on the Commission's Web site at www.ussc.gov/advisory-groups.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Practitioners Advisory Group of the United States Sentencing Commission is a standing advisory group of the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 995 and Rule 5.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under the charter for the advisory group, the purpose of the advisory group is (1) to assist the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 994(o); (2) to provide to the Commission its views on the Commission's activities and work, including proposed priorities and amendments; (3) to disseminate to defense attorneys, and to other professionals in the defense community, information regarding federal sentencing issues; and (4) to perform other related functions as the Commission requests. The advisory group consists of not more than 17 voting members, each of whom may serve not more than two consecutive three-year terms. Of those 17 voting members, one shall be Chair, one shall be Vice Chair, 12 shall be circuit members (one for each federal judicial circuit other than the Federal Circuit), and three shall be at-large members.

    To be eligible to serve as a voting member, an individual must be an attorney who (1) devotes a substantial portion of his or her professional work to advocating the interests of privately-represented individuals, or of individuals represented by private practitioners through appointment under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, within the federal criminal justice system; (2) has significant experience with federal sentencing or post-conviction issues related to criminal sentences; and (3) is in good standing of the highest court of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which he or she is admitted to practice. Additionally, to be eligible to serve as a circuit member, the individual's primary place of business or a substantial portion of his or her practice must be in the circuit concerned. Each voting member is appointed by the Commission.

    The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to a voting membership covered by this notice (i.e., the circuit memberships for the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, and the two at-large memberships) to apply by sending a letter of interest and a resume to the Commission as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above.

    Authority:

    28 U.S.C. § 994(a), (o), (p), § 995; USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.4.

    Patti B. Saris, Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13680 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210-40-P
    UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION Proposed Priorities for Amendment Cycle AGENCY:

    United States Sentencing Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze sentencing issues, including operation of the federal sentencing guidelines, and in accordance with Rule 5.2 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, the United States Sentencing Commission is seeking comment on possible priority policy issues for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2017.

    DATES:

    Public comment should be received by the Commission on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be sent to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is [email protected]. The regular mail address is United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 2-500, South Lobby, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs—Priorities Comment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502-4500, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).

    Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(g), the Commission intends to consider the issue of reducing costs of incarceration and overcapacity of prisons, to the extent it is relevant to any identified priority.

    The Commission provides this notice to identify tentative priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2017. The Commission recognizes, however, that other factors, such as the enactment of any legislation requiring Commission action, may affect the Commission's ability to complete work on any or all of its identified priorities by the statutory deadline of May 1, 2017. Accordingly, it may be necessary to continue work on any or all of these issues beyond the amendment cycle ending on May 1, 2017.

    As so prefaced, the Commission has identified the following tentative priorities:

    (1) Continuation of its work with Congress and other interested parties on statutory mandatory minimum penalties to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission's 2011 report to Congress, titled Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System, including its recommendations regarding the severity and scope of mandatory minimum penalties, consideration of expanding the “safety valve” at 18 U.S.C. 3553(f), and elimination of the mandatory “stacking” of penalties under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and to develop appropriate guideline amendments in response to any related legislation.

    (2) Continuation of its multi-year examination of the overall structure of the guidelines post-Booker, possibly including recommendations to Congress on any statutory changes and development of any guideline amendments that may be appropriate. As part of this examination, the Commission intends to study possible approaches to (A) simplify the operation of the guidelines, promote proportionality, and reduce sentencing disparities; and (B) appropriately account for the defendant's role, culpability, and relevant conduct.

    (3) Continuation of its study of approaches to encourage use of alternatives to incarceration, including possible consideration of amending the Sentencing Table in Chapter 5, Part A to consolidate and/or expand Zones A, B, and C, and any other relevant provisions in the Guidelines Manual.

    (4) Continuation of its multi-year study of statutory and guideline definitions relating to the nature of a defendant's prior conviction (e.g., “crime of violence,” “aggravated felony,” “violent felony,” “drug trafficking offense,” and “felony drug offense”) and the impact of such definitions on the relevant statutory and guideline provisions (e.g., career offender, illegal reentry, and armed career criminal), possibly including recommendations to Congress on any statutory changes that may be appropriate and development of guideline amendments that may be appropriate.

    (5) Continuation of its comprehensive, multi-year study of recidivism, including (A) examination of circumstances that correlate with increased or reduced recidivism; (B) possible development of recommendations for using information obtained from such study to reduce costs of incarceration and overcapacity of prisons, and promote effectiveness of reentry programs; and (C) consideration of any amendments to the Guidelines Manual that may be appropriate in light of the information obtained from such study.

    (6) Study of the findings and recommendations contained in the May 2016 Report issued by the Commission's Tribal Issues Advisory Group, and consideration of any amendments to the Guidelines Manual that may be appropriate in light of the information obtained from such study.

    (7) Study of the treatment of youthful offenders under the Guidelines Manual, including possible amendments to Chapter Five, Part H.

    (8) Study of the operation of Chapter Four, Part A of the Guidelines Manual, including (A) the feasibility and appropriateness of using the amount of time served by an offender, as opposed to the sentence imposed, for purposes of calculating criminal history under Chapter Four; and (B) the treatment of revocation sentences under § 4A1.2(k).

    (9) Study of offenses involving 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (Methylone) and consideration of any amendments to the Guidelines Manual that may be appropriate in light of the information obtained from such study.

    (10) Implementation of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, and any other crime legislation enacted during the 114th or 115th Congress warranting a Commission response.

    (11) Resolution of circuit conflicts, pursuant to the Commission's continuing authority and responsibility, under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B) and Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991), to resolve conflicting interpretations of the guidelines by the federal courts.

    (12) Consideration of any miscellaneous guideline application issues coming to the Commission's attention from case law and other sources, including possible consideration of whether a defendant's denial of relevant conduct should be considered in determining whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for purposes of § 3E1.1.

    The Commission hereby gives notice that it is seeking comment on these tentative priorities and on any other issues that interested persons believe the Commission should address during the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2017. To the extent practicable, public comment should include the following: (1) A statement of the issue, including, where appropriate, the scope and manner of study, particular problem areas and possible solutions, and any other matters relevant to a proposed priority; (2) citations to applicable sentencing guidelines, statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions; and (3) a direct and concise statement of why the Commission should make the issue a priority.

    Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.2.

    Patti B. Saris, Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13681 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210-40-P
    81 111 Thursday, June 9, 2016 Unified Agenda Part II Regulatory Information Service Center Semiannual Regulatory Agenda REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions AGENCY:

    Regulatory Information Service Center.

    ACTION:

    Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

    SUMMARY:

    The Spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

    Publication of the Spring 2016 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions represents a key component of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735) and incorporated by reference in the President's Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821).

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual regulatory agendas in the Federal Register describing regulatory actions they are developing that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities(5 U.S.C. 602).

    In the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda) agencies report regulatory actions upcoming in the next year. Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and Office of Management and Budget memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish minimum standards for agencies' agendas, including specific types of information for each entry.

    The Unified Agenda helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda for spring 2016, which contains the regulatory agendas for 57 Federal agencies, is available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.

    The spring 2016 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal Register consists of agency regulatory flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    ADDRESSES:

    Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., MVE, Room 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry. To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., MVE, Room 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions I. What is the Unified Agenda? II. Why is the Unified Agenda published? III. How is the Unified Agenda organized? IV. What information appears for each entry? V. Abbreviations VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda? Agency Agendas Cabinet Departments Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Education Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transportation Department of the Treasury Other Executive Agencies Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Environmental Protection Agency General Services Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration Small Business Administration Joint Authority Department of Defense/General Services Administration/National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Federal Acquisition Regulation) Independent Regulatory Agencies Commodity Futures Trading Commission Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Consumer Product Safety Commission Federal Communications Commission Federal Maritime Commission Federal Reserve System Nuclear Regulatory Commission Securities and Exchange Commission Surface Transportation Board Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions I. What is the Unified Agenda?

    The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared in the Federal Register twice each year since 1983 and has been available online since 1995. The complete Unified Agenda is available to the public at http://reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda offers user-friendly flexible search tools and a vast historical database.

    The spring 2016 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal Register consists of agency regulatory flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Printed entries display only the fields required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Complete agenda information for those entries appears, in a uniform format, in the online Unified Agenda at http://reginfo.gov.

    These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory agendas from 57 Federal agencies. Agencies of the United States Congress are not included.

    The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.

    Department of State Department of Veterans Affairs Agency for International Development Commission on Civil Rights Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Corporation for National and Community Service Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Institute of Museum and Library Services National Archives and Records Administration National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Humanities National Science Foundation Office of Government Ethics Office of Management and Budget Office of Personnel Management Office of the United States Trade Representative Peace Corps Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Railroad Retirement Board Social Security Administration Farm Credit Administration Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Maritime Commission Federal Trade Commission Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council National Credit Union Administration National Indian Gaming Commission National Transportation Safety Board

    The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated by reference in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.

    The activities included in the Unified Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.

    Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Unified Agenda does not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.

    II. Why is the Unified Agenda published?

    The Unified Agenda helps agencies comply with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various Executive orders and other statutes.

    Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” signed September 30, 1993, (58 FR 51735), requires covered agencies to prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Order also requires that certain agencies prepare annually a regulatory plan of their “most important significant regulatory actions,” which appears as part of the fall Unified Agenda. Executive Order 13497, signed January 30, 2009 (74 FR 6113), revoked the amendments to Executive Order 12866 that were contained in Executive Order 13258 and Executive Order 13422.

    Executive Order 13563

    Executive Order 13563 entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued on January 18, 2011, supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, which includes the general principles of regulation and public participation, and orders integration and innovation in coordination across agencies; flexible approaches where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory approaches; scientific integrity in any scientific or technological information and processes used to support the agencies' regulatory actions; and retrospective analysis of existing regulations.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to identify those rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 602). Agencies meet that requirement by including the information in their submissions for the Unified Agenda. Agencies may also indicate those regulations that they are reviewing as part of their periodic review of existing rules under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). Executive Order 13272 entitled “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” signed August 13, 2002, (67 FR 53461), provides additional guidance on compliance with the Act.

    Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 entitled “Federalism,” signed August 4, 1999, (64 FR 43255), directs agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have “federalism implications” as defined in the Order. Under the Order, an agency that is proposing a regulation with federalism implications, which either preempt State law or impose non-statutory unfunded substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, must consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. In addition, the agency must provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a federalism summary impact statement for such a regulation, which consists of a description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which those concerns have been met. As part of this effort, agencies include in their submissions for the Unified Agenda information on whether their regulatory actions may have an effect on the various levels of government and whether those actions have federalism implications.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, title II) requires agencies to prepare written assessments of the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions “that may 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 1 year . . . .” The requirement does not apply to independent regulatory agencies, nor does it apply to certain subject areas excluded by section 4 of the Act. Affected agencies identify in the Unified Agenda those regulatory actions they believe are subject to title II of the Act.

    Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” signed May 18, 2001, (66 FR 28355), directs agencies to provide, to the extent possible, information regarding the adverse effects that agency actions may have on the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Under the Order, the agency must prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for “those matters identified as significant energy actions.” As part of this effort, agencies may optionally include in their submissions for the Unified Agenda information on whether they have prepared or plan to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for their regulatory actions.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, title II) established a procedure for congressional review of rules (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), which defers, unless exempted, the effective date of a “major” rule for at least 60 days from the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Act specifies that a rule is “major” if it has resulted, or is likely to result, in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of OIRA will make the final determination as to whether a rule is major.

    III. How is the Unified Agenda organized?

    Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily edition of the Federal Register. A regulatory flexibility agenda is printed for each agency whose agenda includes entries for rules which are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or rules that have been selected for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Each printed agenda appears as a separate part. The parts are organized alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet departments; other executive agencies; the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a joint authority; and independent regulatory agencies. Agencies may in turn be divided into sub-agencies. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing information specific to that agency. Each printed agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's printed entries that follow.

    The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.

    Each entry in the Unified Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:

    1. Prerule Stage—actions agencies will undertake to determine whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.

    2. Proposed Rule Stage—actions for which agencies plan to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the next step.

    3. Final Rule Stage—actions for which agencies plan to publish a final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as the next step.

    4. Long-Term Actions—items under development but for which the agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.

    5. Completed Actions—actions or reviews the agency has completed or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the Agenda.

    Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on http://reginfo.gov to search for Completed and Long-Term Actions apart from each other and active RINs.

    A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.

    In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.

    Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the Federal Register Thesaurus of Indexing Terms. In addition, online users have the option of searching Agenda text fields for words or phrases.

    IV. What information appears for each entry?

    All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:

    Title of the Regulation—a brief description of the subject of the regulation. In the printed edition, the notation “Section 610 Review” following the title indicates that the agency has selected the rule for its periodic review of existing rules under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610(c)). Some agencies have indicated completions of section 610 reviews or rulemaking actions resulting from completed section 610 reviews. In the online edition, these notations appear in a separate field.

    Priority—an indication of the significance of the regulation. Agencies assign each entry to one of the following five categories of significance.

    (1) Economically Significant

    As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The definition of an “economically significant” rule is similar but not identical to the definition of a “major” rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)

    (2) Other Significant

    A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.

    (3) Substantive, Nonsignificant

    A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.

    (4) Routine and Frequent

    A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.

    (5) Informational/Administrative/Other

    A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.

    Major—whether the rule is “major” under 5